POPULATION
DISTRIBUTION EFFECTS
OF MIGRATION IN
AUSTRALIA
Condensed Version
Professor Graeme Hugo
ARC Australian Professorial Fellow, Professor of Geography and
Director of the National Centre for Social Applications of GIS,
The University of Adelaide
Dr Kevin Harris
National Centre for Social Applications of GIS,
The University of Adelaide
Report for Department of Immigration and Citizenship
March 2011
CONTENTS
CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... i LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. vii LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................. viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 1.2 INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION ................................................................. 1 1.3 AUSTRALIA’S DISTINCTIVE POPULATION DISTRIBUTION .............. 1 1.4 DATA SOURCES ........................................................................................... 1 1.5 DATA USED IN THIS REPORT.................................................................... 2 1.6 METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES...................................................................... 2 1.6.1 Identifying ‘Sinks’ and ‘Sources’...................................................... 2 1.6.2 Preparation of Mobility Data for Selected Local Government
Authorities ......................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 2. POPULATION MOBILITY IN AUSTRALIA ............................................... 4 2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 4 2.2 NET MIGRATION IN STATISTICAL DIVISIONS ..................................... 4 2.3 GENDER AND INTERNAL MIGRATION................................................... 5 2.4 INTERNAL MIGRATION OF POPULATION AGED 65 YEARS
AND OLDER, 2001-06 ................................................................................... 6 2.5 INTERNAL MIGRATION OF POPULATION AGED 45-64 YEARS,
2001-06 ............................................................................................................ 6 2.6 INTERNAL MIGRATION OF POPULATION AGED 25-44 YEARS,
2001-06 ............................................................................................................ 7 2.7 INTERNAL MIGRATION OF POPULATION AGED 15-24 YEARS,
2001-06 ............................................................................................................ 7 2.8 INTERNAL MIGRATION OF POPULATION AGED 0-14 YEARS,
2001-06 ............................................................................................................ 9 2.9 INTERNAL MIGRATION OF THE AUSTRALIA-BORN, 2001-06 ........... 9 2.10 INTERNAL MIGRATION IN THE OVERSEAS-BORN.............................. 9 2.11 INTERNAL MIGRATION AND HUMAN CAPITAL IN
AUSTRALIA, 2001-06.................................................................................. 10 2.11.1 Internal Migration and Level of Education, 2001-06 ...................... 10 2.11.2 Internal Migration and Occupation, 2001-06 .................................. 10 2.11.3 Internal Migration and Income, 2001-06......................................... 10 2.11.4 Internal Migration and Industry, 2001-06 ....................................... 12 ii
2.11.5 Internal Migration and Labour Force Status, 2001-06 .................... 12 2.12 SUMMARY................................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER 3. MEASURING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERNAL
MIGRATION, 2001-2006 ......................................................................................... 16 3.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 16 3.1.1 Data compatibility issues................................................................. 16 3.2 MIGRATION EFFECTIVENESS................................................................. 16 3.3 INTERNAL MIGRATION EFFECTIVENESS, 2001-2006 ........................ 17 3.4 3.3.1 Mobility of total population............................................................. 17 3.3.2 Mobility of males and females in total population .......................... 18 3.3.3 Mobility of persons aged 15-24....................................................... 18 3.3.4 Mobility of persons aged 45-64....................................................... 19 3.3.5 Mobility of persons aged 65 and over ............................................. 20 INTERNAL MIGRATION AMONG THE WORKFORCE, 2001-2006 ..... 20 3.4.1 Mobility of Employed Persons........................................................ 21 3.4.2 Mobility of Unemployed Persons.................................................... 21 3.4.3 Mobility of Persons employed in primary industries ...................... 22 3.4.4 Mobility of Persons employed in mining industries........................ 22 3.4.5 Mobility of Persons employed in secondary industries................... 22 3.4.6 Mobility of Persons employed in tertiary industries ....................... 23 3.4.7 Mobility of professionals and managers.......................................... 24 3.4.8 Mobility of technical and tradespersons.......................................... 24 3.4.9 Mobility of operators, drivers and labourers ................................... 25 3.4.10 Mobility of high income earners ..................................................... 25 3.4.11 Mobility of highly qualified persons ............................................... 26 3.4.12 Mobility of recently arrived migrants.............................................. 26 3.4.13 Mobility of longer term migrants .................................................... 27 3.4.14 Migration effectiveness, 2001-2006: Summary .............................. 27 3.5 RELATING NET MIGRATION TO POPULATION CHANGE................. 29 3.5.1 Net migration and population change – total population ................ 30 3.5.2 Net migration and population change – employed population........ 31 3.5.3 Net migration and population change – unemployed
population ........................................................................................ 31 3.5.4 Net migration and population change – NILF population............... 32 3.5.5 Net migration and population change – professional and
managerial population ..................................................................... 32 iii
3.5.6 Net migration and population change – technical and trades
occupations ...................................................................................... 32 3.5.7 Net migration and population change – operators, drivers and
labourer occupations........................................................................ 33 3.5.8 Net migration and population change – persons with a
bachelor degree or higher ................................................................ 33 3.5.9 Net migration and population change – recently arrived
migrants ........................................................................................... 33 3.5.10 Net migration and population change – longer term migrants ........ 33 3.5.11 Net migration and population change, 2001-2006: Summary......... 33 CHAPTER 4. INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION AND ITS IMPACT ON
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION ............................................................................. 37 4.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 37 4.2 INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION AND ITS EFFECTS ON
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION ................................................................. 37 4.3 DISTRIBUTION OF AUSTRALIA-BORN AND OVERSEAS-BORN
POPULATIONS IN AUSTRALIA, 2006 ..................................................... 38 4.3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 38 4.3.2 Changing Distribution between States and Territories.................... 38 4.3.3 Overseas-Born in Urban Areas........................................................ 38 4.3.4 Overseas-Born in Non-Metropolitan Areas..................................... 39 4.3.5 The Role of Policy........................................................................... 39 4.3.6 The Distribution of the Overseas-Born ........................................... 39 4.3.7 Distribution of Overseas-Born by Length of Time in Australia...... 39 4.3.8 Distribution of Overseas-Born by Birthplace.................................. 40 4.4 TEMPORARY MIGRATION ....................................................................... 40 4.5 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................. 40 CHAPTER 5. INTERNAL MIGRATION OF RECENT MIGRANTS ............................... 42 5.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 42 5.2 INTERNAL MIGRATION OF RECENT MIGRANTS IN
AUSTRALIA, 2001-06.................................................................................. 42 5.2.1 Total Internal Migration between Statistical Divisions................... 42 5.2.2 Internal Migration of Recent Migrants, Gender .............................. 43 5.2.3 Internal Migration of Recent Migrants Aged 25-44 Years,
2001-06............................................................................................ 44 5.2.4 Internal Migration of Recent Migrants and Language
Proficiency, 2001-06 ....................................................................... 44 iv
5.3 5.4 INTERNAL MIGRATION OF RECENT MIGRANTS AND HUMAN
CAPITAL, 2001-06 ....................................................................................... 44 5.3.1 Internal Migration of Recent Migrants and Level of
Education, 2001-06.......................................................................... 44 5.3.2 Internal Migration of Recent Migrants and Occupation, 200106 ..................................................................................................... 45 5.3.3 Mobility and Labour Force Status, 2001-06.................................... 45 SUMMARY................................................................................................... 45 CHAPTER 6. INTERNAL MIGRATION OVER 2005-06 ................................................. 47 6.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 47 6.2 COMPARING FIVE YEAR AND ONE YEAR INTERNAL
MIGRATION................................................................................................. 47 6.3 FIVE YEAR AND ONE YEAR POPULATION CHANGE ........................ 47 6.4 INTERNAL MIGRATION BETWEEN 2005-06 ......................................... 48 6.5 ONE YEAR MIGRATION OF RECENT MIGRANTS ............................... 48 6.6 6.5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 48 6.5.2 Comparing One Year and Five Year Internal Migration
among Recent Migrants................................................................... 48 6.5.3 One Year Migration of Recent Migrants......................................... 49 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................. 49 CHAPTER 7. EFFECTS OF RECENT MIGRATION ON POPULATION
COMPOSITION IN REGIONS................................................................................. 50 7.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 50 7.2 SYDNEY, MELBOURNE, BRISBANE, PERTH AND ADELAIDE
STATISTICAL DIVISIONS ......................................................................... 50 7.3 HOBART, CANBERRA AND DARWIN STATISTICAL
DIVISIONS.................................................................................................... 55 7.3.1 Recent migrants’ impact on age structure ....................................... 56 7.3.2 Recent migrants and labour force status.......................................... 56 7.3.3 Impact of recent migration on industry of occupation .................... 56 7.3.4 Impact of recent migrants on occupation structure ......................... 56 7.3.5 Income levels of recent migrants..................................................... 56 7.3.6 Effect of recent migration on educational attainment levels ........... 56 7.3.7 Recent migrants and housing tenure................................................ 57 7.4 SUMMARY................................................................................................... 57 7.5 THE EFFECTS OF RECENT MIGRANTS ON NATURAL
INCREASE .................................................................................................... 57 7.5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 57 v
7.5.2 Summary.......................................................................................... 58 CHAPTER 8. FUTURE MIGRATION AND POPULATION DISTRIBUTION ............... 59 8.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 59 8.2 ASSESSING THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION
IN AUSTRALIA............................................................................................ 59 8.2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 59 8.2.2 Ageing of the Australian Population ............................................... 60 8.2.3 Economic Drivers............................................................................ 60 8.2.4 The Environment and Climate Change ........................................... 60 8.2.5 The Role of Migration Networks .................................................... 60 8.2.6 The Linkage with Temporary Migration ......................................... 60 8.2.7 Emigration ....................................................................................... 61 8.3 SOME NET OVERSEAS MIGRATION (NOM) ISSUES........................... 61 8.4 WHAT NET MIGRATION ASSUMPTIONS SHOULD BE USED
TO EXAMINE REGIONAL IMPACTS UP TO 2021?................................ 61 8.5 PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH IN REGIONS ............................. 62 8.5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 62 8.5.2 New South Wales ............................................................................ 62 8.5.3 Victoria ............................................................................................ 63 8.5.4 Queensland ...................................................................................... 63 8.5.5 South Australia ................................................................................ 64 8.5.6 Western Australia ............................................................................ 64 8.5.7 Tasmania.......................................................................................... 64 8.5.8 Northern Territory ........................................................................... 64 8.5.9 Australian Capital Territory ............................................................ 65 8.5.10 Summarising a Scenario of Future Regional Population
Change............................................................................................. 65 8.6 POLICIES TO INFLUENCE WHERE MIGRANTS SETTLE.................... 66 8.7 IMPLICATIONS OF FUTURE MIGRATION FOR REGIONAL
AUSTRALIA................................................................................................. 66 8.7.1 Population Policy............................................................................. 66 8.7.2 Immigration Policy .......................................................................... 67 8.7.3 Regional Development Policy ......................................................... 67 8.7.4 Settlement Services ......................................................................... 68 8.7.5 Planning and Delivery of Government Services ............................. 68 8.7.6 Housing Requirements .................................................................... 68 vi
8.7.7 Liveability, Productivity and Sustainability .................................... 68 8.7.8 Community Harmony, Cohesion and Acceptance of Diversity ...... 69 vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Internal migration in Australia, Age cohorts, 2001-2006...................................... 8 Table 2.2: Internal migration in Australia, selected birthplace groups, 2001-2006 ............... 9 Table 2.3: Internal migration in Australia, human capital, 2001-2006................................. 10 Table 2.4: Internal migration in Australia, selected occupations, 2001-2006 ...................... 11 Table 2.5: Internal migration in Australia, selected weekly income, 2001-2006 ................. 12 Table 2.6: Internal migration in Australia, selected industries, 2001-2006.......................... 13 Table 2.7: Internal migration in Australia, labour force, 2001-2006.................................... 14 Table 3.1: Some key findings from the MER analysis of internal migration, 20012006................................................................................................................ 29 Table 3.2: Comparing Net Migration and Population Change by Various Mobility
Groups, Statistical Divisions, 2001-2006 ...................................................... 35 Table 3.3: Dominant “sinks” and “sources, statistical divisions, 2001-2006 ....................... 36 Table 5.1: Internal migration in Australia, recent migrants, total population, 20012006................................................................................................................ 42 Table 5.2: Internal migration in Australia, recent migrants, gender, 2001-2006.................. 43 Table 5.3: Internal migration in Australia, recent migrants, 25-44 years, 2001-2006.......... 44 Table 5.4: Internal migration in Australia, recent migrants, education level, 20012006................................................................................................................ 44 Table 5.5: Internal migration in Australia, recent migrants, occupation, 2001-2006........... 45 Table 5.6: Internal migration in Australia, recent migrants, labour force, 2001-2006 ........ 45 Table 7.1: Summary of recent migrant impacts within Sydney statistical division.............. 51 Table 7.2: Summary of recent migrant impacts within Melbourne statistical division ........ 52 Table 7.3: Summary of recent migrant impacts within Brisbane statistical division ........... 53 Table 7.4: Summary of recent migrant impacts within Perth statistical division ................. 54 Table 7.5: Summary of recent migrant impacts within Adelaide statistical division ........... 55 viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Net migration, total population, 2001-2006 ......................................................... 6 Figure 8.1: Australia: Non-Metropolitan Statistical Divisions with Population
Projected Growth at More than One Percent per Annum, 2011-21............... 65 ix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
International migration has contributed significantly to post war population growth.
Without it Australia’s current population would be less than 13 million. Where immigrants
settle influences their adjustment to life in Australia as well as having economic, social,
cultural and environmental impacts. Further, government policy is increasingly influential.
Immigrant settlement remains a neglected dimension of Australian (and global) migration
and settlement policy and research. This Report seeks to investigate recent changes in the
settlement pattern of immigrants in Australia and how this impacts upon regional,
demographic and economic change. The first chapter outlines the objectives of the study and
provides important background on the distinctive distribution of the Australian population
and the drivers of change which impinge upon that distribution.
Chapter 2 examines the major patterns of internal migration within Australia, based
on 2006 census internal migration data. Between 2001 and 2006 some 1.69 million people
moved between the sixty Australian statistical divisions – 8.6 percent of all Australians Five
of the eight capital cities experience net internal migration losses, the largest being 121,000
for Sydney. Losses in Melbourne, Adelaide, Darwin and Canberra were relatively small.
The largest net gain occurred in Brisbane, with smaller gains in the other capital cities. A
significant result is that in Sydney and to a lesser extent in the other capitals, the primary
drivers of population growth is not net internal migration but net international migration.
That there is already substantial capital city to rest of state migration could be a starting point
for future regional settlement policy. The same SDs do not dominate as sinks or sources for
net migration, net intrastate and net interstate migration. Indeed, only Sunshine Coast and
Wide Bay-Burnett fall into the top ten sinks for each migration category, and only North
Western, in NSW, is a source for all three mobility measures. The main features of internal
migration in Australia to emerge from the Chapter 2 analyses are:

Huge net internal migration losses have been experienced in Sydney. Its only net gain
was 15-24 year olds. Even with this group, it experienced the lowest net migration
gain of all capital cities. It is clear that aspects of Sydney’s environment – be they
economic or social – impact negatively in attracting and keeping people.

Melbourne levels of net migration loss for most variables were much less than those
for Sydney, often up to one fifth the levels occurring in Sydney.

Brisbane was the standout net internal migration capital. It experienced gains across
almost all areas – and only recorded losses in mining and primary industry employees.

For the mainly non-English speaking group (MNESC) mobility, Melbourne showed a
balanced situation between arrivals and departures during the 2001-06 period.

Of all the groups considered, the 15-24 years group is the most unique. The numbers
in this age group were larger than for any other age group. It showed net migration
growth in all the capital cities and one other SD, and losses everywhere else.

The largest mobility group, numerically, was Year 12 education or less, including no
schooling, with 1.4 million movers between 2001 and 2006.

Three socio-economic groups – movers with a bachelor degree or higher, professional
and managerial occupations and high income – recorded more interstate moves than
intrastate moves.
x

The only other group for which interstate moves exceeded intrastate moves was for
persons born in mainly non-English speaking countries.

Large net losses for persons employed in Clerical and Sales and Community and
personal services occurred in many SDs, due to widespread contraction in services
provisions in rural Australia. This occurred for no other occupation categories.

Only one category – persons employed in primary industry – had net migration losses
in every capital city.

Net migration for persons in mining industry was negative in all capital cities, except
Perth, illustrating the prevalence of fly in-fly out employment conditions for this
mobility group.
In Chapter 3 the main goal is to assess internal migration based on relativities, rather
than on absolute value, which had been the emphasis in Chapter 2. In the first part, the
migration effectiveness ratio (MER) is used to identify internal migration effectiveness in
each SD. The MER relates net migration (the difference between arrivals and departures in
any area) to total migration (the sum of arrivals and departures in any area), expressed as a
percentage, and produces values between 100 and minus 100. The MER allows areas to be
compared to determine whether migration in one area is more effective than in others, or
whether migration is the same in two areas, regardless of the fact that the actual numbers in
each area may be different. High MERs – generally above 15 percent – represent “hot spots”
for intrastate and interstate internal migration. The MER analysis in the chapter has several
key findings:




Not surprisingly, the main SDs identified in Chapter 2 remain unchanged, as
do the general patterns of internal migration, because the same underlying
processes are still at work.
There are SDs where relatively small ins and outs numbers, and net migration,
have generated MERs equivalent to those in statistical divisions with much
larger ins and outs numbers. A number of these are located in Tasmania
(Southern, Mersey-Lyell and Northern), Victoria (Barwon, Loddon, Goulburn)
and South Australia (Outer Adelaide, Yorke and Lower North). In these
localities, net migration, be it intrastate or interstate, is effective. For policy
makers the implication may be as simple as indicating that “critical”
thresholds are being approached, and these can be used to anticipate the arrival
of a newer demographic, and the demand for changed infrastructure demand
and services.
In terms of intrastate migration, the most effective statistical divisions seem to
be located in New South Wales. This would seem to highlight the flight from
capital to “coast”, whether it is to the north coast or to the south coast. A
group of similar SDs is located in central Victoria. In Queensland, there are
fewer SDs with high effectiveness for intrastate migration, suggesting
probably that most Queenslanders are happy with their location and do not
need to shift, even in retirement. Darwin and Hobart each have high MERs
for intrastate migration. The MER approach, therefore, is good for identifying
areas which are attractive to the “locals”.
The MER approach indicates a new dimension to internal migration which
emphasises a “drift” from the cities, by identifying areas within states which
have effective intrastate mobility, regardless of absolute numbers. The drift
xi

from the cities is growing, especially within the older population, and the baby
boomer cohort.
In terms of interstate migration, the MER analysis has demonstrated the power
of Queensland, and how this power is concentrated not just in the south east
corner of the state, but how it extends along its entire coastal region. It is
driven by mobility in not only the retirement group, but also by particular age
groups, labour force groups and occupational groups. In Southern in
Tasmania, its interstate MER highlights the role that interstate migration has
played in the population and economic decline turnaround that Tasmania has
experienced during this decade.
A second approach in Chapter 3 compared the net migration for a particular variable
in any area during a given period with the actual population change (for the same variable) in
the area during the same period. The approach developed a classification, or typology, of
SDs in terms of net migration and population change, and the spatial dimensions of this
typology has implications for population redistribution in Australia. Overall, the approach
identified “real winners” and “real losers” SDs. Localities which experienced net migration
gain, and total population gain, are very much “hot spots” for population growth. On this
evidence, seven hot spots occur in Queensland, five in Victoria, four in NSW, three in
Tasmania and two in each of SA and WA.
Chapter 4 uses a range of comprehensive data to assess the impact of international
migration on population distribution. The analysis confirms a stability in Australia’s
population distribution, the major lineaments of which have changed little over the last
century. However, it is a deceptive stability since there is a great deal of dynamism and
international migration is an important element of this dynamism. International migration
has been of significance in Australia’s urbanisation and in changing the composition of
Australia’s urban populations. Immigration is the key demographic process in the
development of Australia’s major cities, especially the ‘Gateway City’ of Sydney, and is not
only the major demographic engine of growth, but plays an important role in economic and
social change. There has been a significant, albeit small, shift in the settlement patterns of
immigrants in recent years, as immigration plays an increasingly significant role in regional
and state development in Australia, by being explicitly factored into economic planning at
state, regional and local levels. International migration had a substantial offsetting impact on
the large net migration losses Sydney and Melbourne experienced between 2001 and 2006.
A further finding has been the slight shift temporally in the tendency for migrants to choose
capital city locations, although for recent migrants and those from mainly non-English
speaking countries, the evidence suggests still that the capital cities remain the preferred
locations for migrants.
In Chapter 5, analyses undertaken for the total population are repeated for recent
migrants who arrived in Australia between 1996 and 2006. A number of significant findings
were produced:

Interstate mobility was dominant among recent migrants, in direct contrast to patterns
exhibited by the total population. Generally, the proportion of interstate movers was
60 percent or higher. This may suggests that the initial state of location is not suitable
for the needs of recent migrants. Understanding the reasons for this internal mobility
characteristic could result in considerable savings and efficiencies not only for the
movers but also for government agencies.

Sydney statistical division consistently experienced substantial net migration losses,
regardless of mover characteristics, which were not matched by the other capitals.
xii

Among recent migrants, Melbourne was consistently favoured over Sydney. Often
positive net gains for Melbourne contrasted with net losses for Sydney, rather than
smaller net losses for Melbourne compared with Sydney. Clearly, Melbourne
possesses attributes not present in Sydney. Understanding the nature of this attraction
may provide policy directions which could be used in Sydney to halt, if not reverse
the current internal mobility tendencies among recent migrants.

Typically, Brisbane recorded the highest net migration gains, not just among the
capital city SDs, but within the country, while Illawarra, Northern-SA and South
Eastern-WA generated consistently high net losses in a range of variables.

The most cited statistical divisions with low net migration levels in association with
relatively high turnovers were Darling Downs, Goulburn, Northern-Tas,
Murrumbidgee, Barwon, Central West-NSW, Gippsland, Illawarra, Lower Great
Southern, Pilbara, Richmond-Tweed and South Eastern-NSW.
These SDs
consistently attracted large numbers of arrivals and departures, and therefore contain a
balance of positive and negative features in terms of attracting and keeping recent
migrants. A better understanding of the processes that underlie these observations is
an avenue for further enquiry, and may generate policy initiatives which help these
areas retain the recent migrants they attract.
In analysing recent migrant mobility using census data, it needs to be recognised that
in the 2001-2006 mobility data derived from the census, migrants who arrived after 2001 are
not included. However, they are included in the 2005-2006. Hence the analysis of recent
migrant mobility between 2005-2006 in Chapter 6 includes a much larger number of migrants
who arrived in Australia after 1996. It also identified the level of “hidden” mobility among
the total population and the recent migrant population. As well as showing that most of the
prevailing patterns observed for the 2001-2006 period held for the 2005-2006 period, the
Chapter shows the high mobility rates of recently arrived migrants. It also showed that an
important element in internal migration in Australia is a small group who are ‘chronic
movers’ and migrate more than once during the five year intercensal period. Nevertheless
there is strong reinforcement of the patterns discussed in previous chapters including:

Overall, recent migrants are most mobile during their initial months and years in
Australia, as they adjust to life in a new country.

Large net outflows from Sydney and, to a lesser extent, other capital cities except
Brisbane and Perth. Settlement of new migrants in these capitals is their migration
growth engine, not internal migration. Only Brisbane experienced substantial
population growth due to net internal migration gain.

Coastal and near city areas are consistently recording significant net migration gains.
Most net gains are from internal migration but net international migration is
increasing in some areas.

There is a small but important net redistribution of skilled human capital from
metropolitan to non-metropolitan areas due to internal migration.

There is a consistent pattern of net internal migration loss of young adults from nonmetropolitan SDs and net gains in the capitals.

There is a significant net internal migration redistribution of baby boomers and the 65
years and older age group from metropolitan to non-metropolitan areas.
xiii

Internal migration between SDs is not very effective in bringing about a redistribution
of population because the net gains and losses recorded are very small compared with
the size of in migration and out migration flows. Most internal migration between
statistical divisions is counterbalancing.
The goal of Chapter 7 was to show the impact of recent migration on a number of
aspects of population composition in the capital cities. The principal growth metrics used
were total population and age, labour force participation, education and occupation and
access to housing market. A particular emphasis in the chapter has been to demonstrate the
impact of recent migrants by calculating, for a range of variables, how recent migrants have
increased numbers above the levels that would have prevailed in the absence of recent
migration.
In 2006 there were 1.121 million recent migrants in Australia, with 39 percent in
Sydney, 27.7 percent in Melbourne and 12.7 and 12.5 percent in Brisbane and Perth
respectively. These are the “big four” in terms of recent migrants. The recent migrant
population is diverse with large proportions of low skilled persons balanced by a high skilled
and well educated component. As well, significant proportions of recent migrants are
furthering their education in Australia. The most significant implications related to skills and
qualifications revolve around the fact that recent migrants seem determined to improve their
education, and experience indicates that the next generation will take even greater advantages
of the educational opportunities offered by the host country.
There is a high demand for rental accommodation by recent migrants, especially in
Sydney, and has many implications for housing provision in that city. The proportion of
recent migrants renting housing is greater in every capital city that the proportion of the
remainder of the population in rental tenure. Within the capital cities Perth is the standout
capital city. There are signs of recent migrants developing typical tendencies to transition
through the various tenure categories, particularly in Brisbane and Perth. There is also
evidence that recent migrants will embark on their own housing careers, moving
progressively from smaller to larger sized housing.
Chapter 7 also developed a methodology to assess the impact of recent migrants on
fertility levels. The results showed that the impact of recent migrants on the births
component of natural increase has been significant. They have added 120,000 children to the
population, with some 105,000 of these born in capital cities. Their contribution to fertility
will continue for a number of years as younger recent migrants move through their child
bearing stage of life. Recent migrants’ fertility has implications for service providers in a
number of areas, especially in health, education and housing. Recent migrants have other
social impacts including household formation through marriage, including marriage within
the Australian born population.
Finally, the first part of Chapter 8 addresses the issue of future levels of international
migration to Australia. This is important because international migration is a fundamental
determinant of national population growth. Even with significant migration and maintaining
fertility and current levels there will be little, if any, net growth in the younger working ages
during the next 20 years. We therefore need to maintain growth to counterbalance the
massive growth of the older population. Without immigration there will be insufficient
numbers of young people entering the workforce to replace retiring baby boomers, let alone
provide new workers. Further, changes in the Australian economy will influence future
demand for immigration, with claims that labour demand in the next few years, especially in
Queensland and WA, can only be met by increased population growth. Temporary migration
has proliferated since the mid nineties, and has transformed the Australian migration
xiv
landscape. At any one time in Australia there are over 600,000 persons temporarily present.
They are very important because an increasing number of them apply for, and obtain,
permanent residence in Australia, and this will continue to be an important part of Australia’s
net annual overseas migration gain. Countering these tendencies, there is a developing view
that environment and climate change issues should act to reduce Australia’s future migration
intake.
The second part of the Chapter focuses on future patterns of population distribution
across Australia and the role of migration in that. The discussion uses projections of
population prepared by the ABS for both capital cities and rest of state/territory, and
projections prepared at the statistical division level by the state and territory governments.
The main points from the analysis are:
New South Wales

For Sydney, continuing international gains with internal migration losses

Sydney’s international intake dependent on size of national intake and success of regional settlement programmes

Baby boomer exodus, plus high housing costs and congestion, will cause out migration to increase

Regionally, size of immigrant gains dependent on extent of regional settlement initiatives

New castle and Wollongong will be main poles of attraction for immigrants.
Victoria

Overall net migration growth expected to be higher in Melbourne than Sydney

Population gap between Melbourne and Sydney will continue to decline

Government policy is to increase share of migration cake

Out migration will increase, but at magnitude less than Sydney

Regionally, policy is to lift growth to 1% p.a., leading to growth greater than predicted by projections

Rapid growth expected in ring of SDs around Melbourne
Queensland

State’s rapid growth will continue. Expected growth from international and internal migration greater than in other
states.

Immigration likely to contribute most to growth – Brisbane becoming major “gateway” city

Regional growth will be greater than any other location in Australia, with major component of this growth from
internal migration

FIFO may dilute impact of resource development on regional population growth
South Australia

Historically, SA has low immigration growth and out migration losses.

Government policy to increase immigration intakes has been successful. Future levels depend on economic
development and continuation of regional specific migration schemes

Present state growth rate of 1.2% p.a. likely to be 1% p.a. by 2021. Regionally, Outer Adelaide SD expecting rates
approaching 2.5% p.a., but elsewhere less than 0.6% p.a.
Western Australia

WA has had rapid growth over long period. Growth dependent principally on immigration. Immigration will
remain strong.

Regionally, however, immigration will play a lesser role. Regional development fuelled by internal migration

Kimberley and South West SDs to grow at rates faster than Perth, while Pilbara’s growth is half that of Perth’s.
Significant growth in Perth’s peri-urban area.
Tasmania

No real differences are expected in population growth for Hobart and the rest of the state.

Gains and growth rates are lower than for mainland states.

Longer term, climate change may impact of Tasmanian growth
Northern Territory

Measuring and projecting population in the NT has always been difficult.
Most net gain expected in Darwin – it has always had a significant overseas born community


NT Treasury projects NT growth rate at 1.4% p.a. over next decade – twice national rate.
Australian Capital Territory

The ABS projections present quite substantial differences depending on the Series.
Statistical divisions in regional Australia with anticipated population growth near or
above the national average over the next decade have been identified, and international
migration will play an increasing role in this growth during the next decade. Regions with
differing levels of international migration involvement break down into three types – peri-
xv
urban areas around major cities, mining areas and coastal areas. However, in other areas the
influence of ageing on the labour force, and the outmigration of young Australians, will
encourage immigrants to fill available jobs, especially in primary production and processing
of primary production over the next decade.
The third part of Chapter 8 discusses the role of policy, as this will be of crucial
importance in shaping future patterns of immigrant settlement, internal migration and growth.
In particular, SSRM schemes, the 457 temporary workers scheme, and DIAC’s new approach
to humanitarian migrant settlement are discussed to show their impact on the regional
distribution on immigrants.
In the final part of the chapter, a number of current policies and issues are discussed
to identify their implications for future migration in regional Australia. Australia is presently
developing a Sustainable Population Strategy. The Report has developed a number of
implications that can inform the strategy, and these are detailed in the panel below.
Any strategy needs to address population distribution as well as size and composition
International migration is becoming increasingly important in regional population growth
Australians and recent migrants do move to areas of opportunity. Hence:

A national population strategy needs to encourage internal and international migrants into regions of labour
shortage ensuring simultaneously that infrastructure development and service provision occurs

A population policy should “grease the rails” of existing population flow
Baby boomer migration must be an essential part of any population strategy during the next two decades
Permanent and temporary migrants settle in Australia in different ways:

An increasing proportion of permanent migrants are settling outside capital cities
 Temporary migrants are increasingly meeting workforce needs in some non-metropolitan areas
A population policy needs to recognise that those attracted to regions are typically families and /or retirees. Many have
needs for employment for men and women
Liveability and lifestyle dimensions are critically important, as is housing availability and affordability
For immigrants moving to regional areas settlement services, related to welcoming and settling in strategies, are critical
Australia’s settlement system has been in place for 150 years. Can a population strategy change this to achieve a:

Release of regional potential hitherto retarded by a lack of infrastructure

Better balance between the distribution of people and water

Relief of growth pressures in and near the capital cities.

Reduction in pollution and environmental degradation in cities, along with increases in housing availability and
improvements in affordability, and the cost of the journey to work, in cities
One of the key challenges for government at all levels in relation to future
international migration, and regional development associated with a sustainable population
policy is the issue of liveability, productivity and sustainability. This is no easy task because
it means that the value of environmental services will need to be brought more
comprehensively, transparently and explicitly into decision making. More specifically in
relation to increased migrants numbers in regional Australia, policies will be need to
developed to meet the challenges of ethnic diversity in terms of community harmony,
cohesion and acceptance of diversity. One of the encouraging findings of studies of new
immigrant settlement in regional Australia is that while there have been significant issues
relating to acceptance of new groups into rural communities there have been a number of real
success stories.
xvi
1
CHAPTER 1.
1.1
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
This project was commissioned by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship
(DIAC), and has five main components. The first involves an analysis of population
movements at the statistical division level for the whole of Australia. The second component
involves an analysis of the mobility patterns for recent migrants. The third component of the
Report requires an investigation into the effects and impacts of recent migration on
population, the labour and housing markets, and general infrastructure. The fourth
component presents some insights into future migration scenarios between now and 2021,
while the fifth component considers the implication of the various future migration scenarios,
in terms of population and migration policies, regional development, provision of services
related to education, health, housing, and issues such as sustainability and community
harmony.
1.2
INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION
Migration from overseas has been a significant contributor to Australian population
growth throughout the post war period and without its impacts Australia’s current total
population would be less than 13 million. Moreover, where immigrants settle plays an
important role in their adjustment to life in Australia as well as having economic, social,
cultural and environmental impacts on the areas and populations in which they settle.
Furthermore, government policy is increasingly influential
Patterns of immigrant settlement, however, remains a neglected dimension of
Australian (and global) migration and settlement policy and research. This Report seeks to
investigate recent changes in the settlement pattern of immigrants in Australia and how this
impacts upon regional, demographic and economic change. The aim of this first chapter is to
outline not only the objectives of the study but also to provide some important background on
the distinctive distribution of the Australian population and the drivers of change which
impinge upon that distribution.
1.3
AUSTRALIA’S DISTINCTIVE POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
Despite being one of the largest nations in the world by area, Australia also has one of
the most spatially concentrated populations. It also has one of the most residentially mobile
populations of any country. In 2006, 31.0 percent of the population aged five years and over
had lived elsewhere in Australia in 2001 (ABS, 2006 Census). Somewhat paradoxically,
despite this mobility, the Australian population distribution has been remarkably stable. This
pattern of overall stability in the structure of population distribution, however, is very much
one of ‘dynamic stability’ since there is a great deal of mobility within the broad pattern of
concentration of population, as different subgroups in the population have different spatial
patterns of distribution.
1.4
DATA SOURCES
Australia has some of the most comprehensive stock information relating to
international and internal migrants in the world. This is largely through the comprehensive
set of questions asked at quinquennial census enumerations.
2
1.5
DATA USED IN THIS REPORT
Much of the data used in this study have been derived from the 2006 Australian
Census of Population and Housing. The ABS online tool TableBuilder has been extensively
used to generate most of the data. TableBuilder enables the creation of tables, and especially
cross tabulated tables, of Census data by accessing all variables contained in the Census
Output Record File for all ABS geographic areas.
The statistics that have been generated from the matrices and presented as summary
mobility tables throughout the Report are:

Total internal migration out of each statistical division

Total internal migration into each statistical division

Net internal migration (plus or minus) for each statistical division

Total intrastate migration out of each statistical division

Total intrastate migration into each statistical division

Net intrastate migration (plus or minus) for each statistical division

Total interstate migration out of each statistical division

Total interstate migration into each statistical division

Net interstate migration (plus or minus) for each statistical division
The discussion principally focuses on net migration, and is based on raw numbers.
This approach has been adopted because the reality is that understanding the dynamics of
migration, and particularly the implications that stem from them, is all about the numbers
involved, rather than percentages or other relativities.
The summary tables have also provided the data behind an extensive presentation of
net migration maps in the Report. These maps show the spatial variation of net migration
patterns in Australia and allow the reader to immediately gauge the broad characteristics of
mobility for any group and its related variables.
1.6
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
In completing the work a number of methodological issues have been encountered.
1.6.1
Identifying ‘Sinks’ and ‘Sources’
Population mobility inevitably creates a pattern of depopulating areas and areas
whose population is increasing. There are a range of ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors which cause
this. Many are economic based, but others can be related to stage of life cycle events. The
impact of these various social and economic processes that cause people to move can be
highlighted by identifying sinks and sources – a sink is an area into which population flows,
while a source is an area that provides the migration stream, and which experiences an
adverse effect on population as a result of mobility.
In the Report, sinks and sources are defined on the basis of net migration data for each
statistical division.
3
1.6.2
Preparation of Mobility Data for Selected Local Government Authorities
Part of our brief for this Report asked that we prepare similar tabular data for 261
LGAs located throughout Australia. These LGAs were identified by DIAC based on LGAs
meeting defined population thresholds.
We have prepared tables for total mobility, disaggregated into age and sex, for the
2001-06 and 2005-06 periods. For the same periods, we have produced tables for mobility
between LGAs of all migrants, recent migrants who arrived in Australia after 1996 and
migrants who arrived in Australia prior to 1997. For recent migrants, those who arrived in
Australia after 1996, we have also prepared tables for total mobility, disaggregated into age
and sex, for the periods 2001-06 and 2005-06. These tables have been provided to DIAC as
an electronic Appendix of the Report, in Excel format.
4
CHAPTER 2.
2.1
POPULATION MOBILITY
IN AUSTRALIA
INTRODUCTION
This chapter examines the major patterns of internal migration within Australia, based
on 2006 census internal migration data. The main focus is mobility between statistical
divisions. Between 2001 and 2006 some 1.69 million people moved between the sixty
Australian statistical divisions – 8.6 percent of all Australians
Net migration is the main measure used in the study, and is the balance between
incoming and outgoing flows of people in a particular statistical division. The composition
of inflows and outflows can be quite different so that the net migration of particular
subgroups can vary from that of the total net migration. Accordingly, it is important to
analyse not only patterns of total net migration but net migration for important subgroups in
the population.
2.2
NET MIGRATION IN STATISTICAL DIVISIONS
Between 2001 and 2006 five of the eight capital city statistical divisions (SDs)
experience net internal migration losses. The largest loss was 121,000for Sydney SD. The
losses in Melbourne, Adelaide, Darwin and Canberra were relatively small. The largest net
migration gain occurred in Brisbane, while net migration gains in the other capital cities were
small by comparison. Capital city net losses due to internal migration is little recognised in
public discourse in Australia. Instead, it is assumed that the large cities are draining
population from their hinterlands. In fact, net internal migration loss in the capitals is a
longstanding phenomenon, especially in Sydney. It needs to be stressed that in Sydney, and
to a lesser extent in the other capitals, the primary drivers of population growth is not net
internal migration but net international migration. Over the last three decades there has been
a ‘switch-over function’ in Sydney and Melbourne, whereby a net loss of migrants in
exchange with other parts of Australia is more than counterbalanced by an inflow of overseas
migrants. The fact that there is already substantial capital city to rest of state migration needs
to be a starting point for considering future regional settlement policy.
Mobility is a function of push and pull factors which operate differentially across the
country. Hence, from a migration perspective, there will be statistical divisions which act as
sources, experiencing net migration loss, and those which act as sinks and experience net
migration gains. The major reasons for the net population change in any area can be one or
more of the following:

their retirement attraction to an increasingly ageing population, especially in
coastal and some inland areas.

agriculture and mining activity in the hinterland is clearly an additional factor
accounting for the net gains.

people leaving the increasingly congested environment

people leaving areas where employment opportunities are diminishing, often
the result of increased capitalisation in agriculture, lower demand for labour,
reduced economic activity in towns, and closure of shops, schools and other
services
5

overflow from adjoining areas into dormitory suburbs

development of regional urban centres
There are a number of observations that can be made for capital cities:

In Sydney, net interstate migration loss was greater than net intrastate migration loss,
a situation that also occurred in Adelaide. Net interstate losses are most likely due to
economic factors, while the net intrastate losses are probably due to lifestyle factors.

For Melbourne, net intrastate migration loss was greater than net interstate migration,
indicating that its hinterland was a more significant sink than interstate locations.

Brisbane’s net migration gain was a product of net intrastate loss, and significant net
interstate gain of 44,000, illustrating Brisbane’s attraction to interstate movers.

Perth was attractive to both intrastate and interstate movers – it had a net intrastate
gain and net interstate gain, the only capital city with these characteristics.

In Hobart, Canberra and Darwin, the net migration was a result of net intrastate gains
and net interstate losses. .
It might be expected that the same SDs would dominate as sinks or sources for each
of net migration, net intrastate and net interstate migration. However, this is not the case, and
only two SDs – Sunshine Coast and Wide Bay-Burnett – fall into the top ten sinks for net
migration, net intrastate migration and net interstate migration, and only North Western SD,
in NSW, is a source for all three net measures of mobility.
The patterns of net migration in Australia for the 2001-2006 period is shown in Figure
2.1. SDs experiencing net migration loss occurred in hinterland locations which have been
characterised by increased capitalisation of agriculture, lower demand for labour, reduced
economic activities in towns, and closures of shops, schools and other services. Areas with
net migration gains are coastal, especially along the eastern seaboard, and in selected regional
areas. This is the principal pattern of internal migration in Australia, and analyses of various
sub groups in the total population will generate variations on this underlying pattern, brought
about by various peculiarities of the sub group.
2.3
GENDER AND INTERNAL MIGRATION
In general, the differences between male and female net migration is relatively small.
In the capital cities experiencing a net internal migration loss, only in Sydney was there a
greater outflow of women than men. In those capitals experiencing net gains it was only
Perth where inward migration of males substantially outnumbered inward migration of
females, probably due to the type of job opportunities available in the West. In the rapidly
growing Brisbane SD there are more female internal migrants than males. The Gold Coast
has more males moving in than females, but the opposite is the case for the Sunshine Coast
and Wide Bay-Burnett SDs. In non-metropolitan areas experiencing net migration losses
typically the net loss has been greater for females than males, reflecting the lack of job
opportunity diversity in many non-metropolitan areas which disproportionately impact on
women. Among the capital cities, the greatest net loss of nearly 60,000 males occurred in the
Sydney, compared with Melbourne (10,900), Adelaide (5,000) and Darwin (1,000). Brisbane
gained nearly 21,000 males, compared with 2,000 for Perth. Outside the capitals, the same
SDs that were sink SDs for total population are sink SDs for males as well as females. The
essential feature of male internal migration is the attractiveness of the coastal SDs throughout
Australia, and the role of hinterland SDs as regions of net population loss through migration.
6
In the case of female migration, five of the eight capital cities experienced net loss of
females, with the greatest in Sydney (58,300). Melbourne lost 7,800, Adelaide 4,700, Darwin
just under 1,000 and Canberra 650. Female net losses in Sydney and Canberra were greater
than those recorded for males.
Brisbane experienced a net gain of 22,000 females. The net gains in Perth and Hobart
were 1,260 and 1,300 respectively. Generally, however, the internal migration characteristics
of females are similar to those for both total net migration and male net migration.
Figure 2.1: Net migration, total population, 2001-2006
Total population, 2001-2006
SD (2006)
10000 or >
5000 to 9999
2000 to 4999
1000 to 1999
0 to 999
-1 to-999
-1000 to -4999
-5000 to -9999
-10000 or >
Data Sources: ABS Census 2006, TableBuilder PUR5P
2.4
INTERNAL MIGRATION OF POPULATION AGED 65 YEARS AND
OLDER, 2001-06
This group currently is the fastest growing subgroup in Australia, and will continue to
be over the next several decades. Therefore, the changing patterns of the distribution of the
older population are important not only for planning the effective provision of services for
this group, but also because this group can be the basis for substantial local and regional
economic growth. The 65+ population is more strongly represented in non-metropolitan
Australia than in the capital cities. The main mobility characteristics of this group are
presented in Table 2.1, and a more detailed analysis can be found in the main Report.
2.5
INTERNAL MIGRATION OF POPULATION AGED 45-64 YEARS, 2001-06
This group is significant because it represents most of the baby boomer generation
that in 2006 made up 27.5 percent of the national population and 41.7 percent of the national
workforce. Six of the eight capital cities experienced net migration loss for this group.
Sydney’s net loss was nearly 39,000 persons, compared with 14,000 for Melbourne, and net
losses between 1,000 and 4,400 in Adelaide, Perth, Darwin and Canberra. These net losses
are substantially higher than those for the 65 years and older group, and indicate that the
boomers seem to be responding to capital city living in the same way as their older
counterparts, probably for the same reasons, and with the same implications. It would be
expected that this group’s impact on internal migration will increase with time as more of
them flee the capital cities. The geographic distribution of net migration for this group shows
widespread net losses throughout the hinterland. The main characteristics of internal
migration for this mobility group is shown in Table 2.1.
7
2.6
INTERNAL MIGRATION OF POPULATION AGED 25-44 YEARS, 2001-06
With 643,000 movers, it is the largest internal migration group numerically, and it
also shows a relatively similar propensity to both interstate and intrastate movement. The
main mobility characteristics for this group are shown in Table 2.1. Significant net losses
occurred in a number of SDs across the hinterland, while the influence of resource
development related employment opportunities contributed to gains for the Pilbara SD in
Western Australia, and in the Mackay and Fitzroy statistical divisions in Queensland.
2.7
INTERNAL MIGRATION OF POPULATION AGED 15-24 YEARS, 2001-06
Around 309,000 persons in this age group moved residence, and of these around
187,000 were intrastate moves. This is a key age group since it is the stage of the life cycle
when Australians tend to make the education to work transition and most leave the family
home for the first time. It is a diverse group, with important implications for mobility, related
to education, work opportunities and rural-urban population drift. Table 2.1 summarises the
groups internal mobility characteristics.
8
Table 2.1: Internal migration in Australia, Age cohorts, 2001-2006
Migration group
Scale of movement
Comments/Implications
65 years and over
130,000 moved between 2001 and 2006, or
8.7% of all movers. 4.9% of 65+ pop in
Australia.
Changing patterns of the distribution of the older
population are important not only for planning the effective
provision of services for this group, but also because this
group can be the basis for substantial local and regional
economic growth. Moreover, the 65+ population is more
strongly represented in non-metropolitan Australia than in
the capital cities.
64% were intrastate moves, 36% interstate
moves
Largest losses from Sydney and Melbourne.
Largest gains in Brisbane.
Main sinks are in Queensland and NSW Wide Bay-Burnett, South West-WA, MidNorth Coast, Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast.
45-64
years.
Basically the baby
boomer
cohort.
27.5% of national
population
350,000 movers (20.8% all movers). 7.1% of
the total age group.
58% were intrastate moves.
Net loss from Sydney 39,000, Melbourne
14,000. Net gain in Brisbane 1,200
Main sinks are in Queensland and New South
Wales – Wide Bay-Burnett, Gold Coast,
Sunshine Coast, Mid-North Coast
25-44 years
Linked to 0-14
years group as
“parents”
The group’s impact on population redistribution implies
increased needs for services in regional areas, be they sea
change or tree change regions. This redistribution process
will continue to occur for some time.
This group represents the early stages of a baby boomer
population redistribution in Australia. Can be expected to
intensify over next several decades.
Will reinforce implications already developing in sea
change and tree change localities throughout Australia
Along the coastal fringes, employment opportunities, as
well as retirement and leisure opportunities, have
influenced the mobility of this group in a way that is not the
case with the 65 years and over age group
643,000 movers- the largest numerical group
(38.3% of all movers). 11.5% of the total age
group
325,000 intrastate movers, 318,000 interstate
movers. Balanced situation
All capitals had net loss, except Brisbane and
Hobart. Sydney lost 51,000, compared with
12,000 from Melbourne. Largest capital city
gains in Brisbane (13,600).
Top 3 sink SDs:
Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Mid-North
Coast
15-24 years. Group
making key stage
of
life
cycle
changes:
309,000 movers (18.4% of all movers).
11.4% of the total age group.
Education to work
transition
Net gains for all capital cities, largest in
Brisbane (20,400), smallest in Sydney
(5,100).
Establishing
households for first
time
0-14 years.
The
dependent group
60% are intrastate moves.
Outside the capitals, only 2 SDs had net gains
– Gold Coast and Northern-Qld (due to role
of education facilities located there).
248,000 movers (14.8% of all movers). 6.3%
of the total age group.
56% are intrastate moves.
Largest losses from Sydney and Melbourne,
biggest gains in Brisbane and Perth.
Top 3 sinks: Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast,
This group is being displaced from the regions, due to lack
of educational facilities (both secondary and tertiary) and
employment opportunities.
Rural-urban drain for this group is not replicated in other
age groups
Aspects of its diversity have important implications for
mobility:

undertaking education, both secondary and
tertiary.

entering the workforce, with many employment
opportunities located in the city areas

rural-urban loss from many SDs a feature in
Australia since 1970s
Mobility patterns of this group very similar to that for the
25-44 group.
9
Wide-Bay Burnett
2.8
INTERNAL MIGRATION OF POPULATION AGED 0-14 YEARS, 2001-06
In the dependent child age category most internal migrations are the result of
decisions taken by others, most typically a parent. Their internal migration patterns are
summarised in Table 2.1.
2.9
INTERNAL MIGRATION OF THE AUSTRALIA-BORN, 2001-06
Table 2.2 presents the main characteristics of mobility for Australian born persons.
Table 2.2: Internal migration in Australia, selected birthplace groups, 2001-2006
Migration group
Scale of movement
Comments/Implications
Australian born
1.41 million movers during 2001-2006.
Patterns of mobility and location very similar to
that for total population. Losses from remote
areas and hinterlands and displacement to eastern
seaboard, and parts of coastal SA and WA, and
Tasmania
Largest losses – Sydney (92,000), Melbourne
(13,800). Biggest gains in Brisbane (35,400)
and Perth (7,200).
57% intrastate movers
Top sinks: - Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Wide
Bay-Burnett, Hunter, Mid-North Coast
OSB - MESC
148,000 movers.
moves
77,000 (52%) intrastate
Mobility is widespread, and is very similar to that
of the Australian born group.
Largest losses – Sydney 17,200 and Melbourne
4,200. Biggest gains were in Brisbane 1,900
and Hobart 700.
Main sinks: Wide Bay-Burnett, South WestWA, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Mid-North
Coast
OSB - MNESC
98,000 movers. 40,000 (40.8%) intrastate
moves. Therefore, this group involved in
significant interstate mobility.
Losses in 6/8 capitals, with largest of 9,100 in
Sydney and 960 in Adelaide. Only gains were
4,400 in Brisbane and 200 in Canberra.
Propensity for interstate mobility may indicate
dissatisfaction with original state of settlement.
This has implication for states losing population
from this group.
Main sinks: Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Wide
Bay-Burnett, South East-NSW, Mid-North
Coast
2.10
INTERNAL MIGRATION IN THE OVERSEAS-BORN
Internal mobility analyses show that not only are recent immigrants more mobile than
other Australians but they also have quite different patterns of movement Further, the Mainly
English Speaking (MES) migrant population had a higher level of mobility than those from
Mainly Non-English Speaking (MNESC) countries. The main characteristics of recent
migrants from MESC and MNESC origins are presented in Table 2.2. It is worth stating,
again, that the analysis is confined to overseas-born persons who were present in Australia at
both the 2001 and 2006 censuses, and the substantial numbers of immigrants who had been in
Australia less than five years at the 2006 Census are absent from the analysis.
10
2.11
INTERNAL MIGRATION AND HUMAN CAPITAL IN AUSTRALIA, 2001-06
2.11.1 Internal Migration and Level of Education, 2001-06
The mobility characteristics of movers with selected level of educational attainment
are presented in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: Internal migration in Australia, human capital, 2001-2006
Migration group
Scale of movement
Comments/Implications
Bachelor degree
or higher
284,000 movers, of which 54 percent of
moves were interstate.
This group represents the mobility of substantial human
capital, with implications for sink and source regions. Has
significant impact on development, and the group’s
redistribution is influenced by demand from mining and
resource development, as well as demand from education
and commercial sectors of the Australian economy.
Sydney lost 13,000 compared with
4,200 for Adelaide. Best gains were
3,800 in Brisbane and 2,000 in
Canberra.
Main sinks: Sunshine Coast, Gold
Coast, South East-NSW, Mid-North
Coast, South West-WA
Certificate
diploma
of
356,000 movers, of which 55.2% are
intrastate moves.
Net loss of 31,300 from Sydney and
2,700 from Adelaide. Gain of 8,000 in
Brisbane.
Spatial pattern of mobility not evident for any other group
so far considered. Mining industry demand, and from
education and commercial sectors, are influencing the
spatial variation of net migration gains for this group
Distribution of net migration gain is continuous along
coastal belt of eastern states, Tasmania and South Australia,
and the south west region of Western Australia, in contrast
to the “broken” distribution for higher qualified movers.
Main sinks: Gold Coast, Sunshine
Coast, Wide Bay-Burnett, Hunter, MidNorth Coast
Year 12 or less
1.4 million movers. 55.7% of moves
are intrastate.
Main sinks: Gold Coast, Sunshine
Coast, Wide Bay-Burnett, South WestWA and Hunter
2.11.2 Internal Migration and Occupation, 2001-06
The main mobility characteristics for the five occupational groups examined in this
analysis are presented in Table 2.4. Fuller details can be seen in the main Report.
2.11.3 Internal Migration and Income, 2001-06
There are strong linkages between level of education, type of occupation and income
levels. Therefore, some mobility patterns related to income are likely to mirror some of the
mobility patterns and trends related to both education and occupation. Table 2.5 displays the
key internal migration features of persons with differing incomes.
11
Table 2.4: Internal migration in Australia, selected occupations, 2001-2006
Migration group
Scale of movement
Comments/Implications
Professionals and
managers
331,000 movers. 50.2% of moves are interstate.
Only occupational group with more interstate moves
than intrastate moves. Similar characteristics to
movers with bachelor degree or higher.
“Brain drain” has important implications for
Sydney and Adelaide.
Dominant
sinks
are
those
located
predominantly along the eastern seaboard.
Biggest losses from Sydney (17,300) and Adelaide
(5,000). Gains of 5,700 for Brisbane and 2,700 for
Canberra.
Main sinks: Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, South
Eastern-NSW, Mid-North Coast, South West-WA.
Technical
trades
and
260,000 movers. 55.7% intrastate moves.
Losses of 8,200 and 1,400 from Sydney and
Melbourne. Main gains in Brisbane (4,200) and
Perth (1,300).
Main sinks: Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Mackay,
Hunter, South West-WA
Clerical and sales
209,000 movers. 53.3% intrastate.
Loss of 11,800 from Sydney, very small loss in
Adelaide. Best gains 10,200 in Brisbane and 2,200 in
Melbourne
Main sinks: Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Hunter,
Northern-Qld, Outer Adelaide, South Eastern-NSW.
Community and
Personal services
Two thirds of SDs experienced net loss of
technical and trades workers. Suggests severe
contraction of opportunities for these
occupations, linked to population decline in
these regions. Demand for this group is linked
to
population
growth
and
resource
development.
Most mobile group after professionals and
managers.
Melbourne recorded net gain, in contrast to its
net losses for most other occupational groups.
Mobility
influenced
by
contracting
employment opportunities, especially in rural
areas affected by restructuring since seventies.
101,000 movers (56.3% intrastate).
Only Sydney (2,960) and Adelaide (50) had net
losses. Highest gains in Brisbane (3,620) and
Melbourne (1,900).
Nearly two thirds of SD recorded net losses
Main sinks: Gold Coast, Northern-Qld, Sunshine
Coast and Far North
Operators, drivers
and labourers
141,500 movers (60% intrastate).
Losses in 6 of the 8 capital cities. Gains in Brisbane
and Perth.
Main sinks: Gold Coast, Mackay, Fitzroy, Sunshine
Coast, South West-WA, Northern-Qld.
Structural
change
has
impacted
on
opportunities for manual semi-skilled workers.
Mobility strongly influenced by resource
development, but also by areas experiencing
population change through retirement mobility
into sea change and tree change regions.
12
Table 2.5: Internal migration in Australia, selected weekly income, 2001-2006
Migration group
Scale of movement
Comments/Implications
High
income
($1,600 or more per
week)
99,000 movers (57.7% interstate)
Most movers interstate – similar to both highly
educated and professional and managerial
movers.
Only Brisbane and Perth capitals experienced
net gain.
Main sinks: Gold Coast, Mackay, Sunshine
Coast, Pilbara, South East-NSW, Hunter,
Fitzroy.
Medium-high income
($1,000 to $1,599 per
week)
204,000 movers. 50.0 percent were intrastate
moves.
Balanced situation
intrastate movers.
Five of eight capitals reported losses.
Nearly half of all SDs had losses for this
mobility group.
Main sinks: Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast,
South East-NSW, South West-WA, Mackay,
Hunter
Low-medium income
($400-$999 per week).
514,000 movers. 55.2% intrastate.
Sydney’s losses ten times greater than next
ranked Adelaide.
Main sinks: Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast,
Wide Bay-Burnett, South West-WA, Far
North, Outer Adelaide, Mackay.
Low
income
($1-$399 per week)
Major sinks are predominantly resource
development related – reflecting high incomes
paid by this activity.
492,000 movers, of which a substantial
60.8% were intrastate moves.
Sydney’s loss of 41,000 was more than eight
times that for next ranked Melbourne.
Main sinks: Wide Bay-Burnett, Gold Coast,
Mid-North Coast, Sunshine Coast, Hunter,
South West-WA, Richmond-Tweed.
between interstate and
Main sinks seem linked to employment
opportunities
associated
with
resource
development, especially in Queensland.
Mobility patterns exhibit a substantial “bleed”
from interior and remote areas to selected
coastal locations.
High proportion moving to intrastate locations,
reinforcing generally acknowledged positive
relationship between income and distance
moved.
Mobility out of Sydney suggests its high cost of
living is driving low income persons and
households away to the lower cost regions.
2.11.4 Internal Migration and Industry, 2001-06
In this analysis, the range of industries has been aggregated into four groupings –
primary, mining, secondary and tertiary, and the main characteristics of mobility for each
group are presented in Table 2.6.
2.11.5 Internal Migration and Labour Force Status, 2001-06
In this section, the residentially mobile population is analysed in terms of whether
they are employed part time or full time, or are unemployed, or are not in the labour force.
The main points associated with their mobility are displayed in Table 2.7.
13
Table 2.6: Internal migration in Australia, selected industries, 2001-2006
Migration group
Scale of movement
Comments/Implications
Primary
27,800 movers – two thirds intrastate
moves.
In capital cities, urbanisation encroaching on
agricultural land is probably driving the exodus of this
group from the capitals.
All capital cities experienced net migration
losses.
Main sinks: Wide Bay-Burnett, Darling
Downs, Northern-NSW, Goulburn, South
West-WA, Western Districts.
Mining
23,000 movers – 58.4% intrastate.
Only Perth has net gain for this group.
Secondary
Main sinks are different from those typically involved in
mobility patterns for most variables considered.
Mobility into intensive agriculture and horticulture
regions, especially along the Murray, may include
numbers of international migrants.
High intrastate mobility reflects high turnover in mining
typically in response to workers moving from site to
site, encouraged by high current demand for skills.
Main sinks: Mackay, Pilbara, Fitzroy,
North West, Northern-SA, Hunter.
Fly in-fly out employment conditions is predominant in
Western Australia, and accounts for net gain for Perth,
compared with net losses for all other capital cities.
140,000 movers – 56% intrastate.
Patterns of net gains are correlated with major
population concentrations, since most secondary
industry is located near these concentrations, even in
regional NSW and Victoria.
Sydney’s loss five times greater than next
ranked Melbourne.
Largest gains in Brisbane and Perth.
Main sinks: Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast,
South West-WA, Outer Adelaide, Mackay,
Hunter.
Tertiary
712,000 movers – largest of the industry
defined groups.
52.5% of movers
intrastate.
Attractive potential of Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast is
substantial. Net gain in these two SDs is 1.6 times
greater than total gain in remaining top ten SDs.
Net losses for Sydney and Adelaide.
Spatial variation of net migration is strongly influenced
by rationalisation of services – education, health,
banking and commerce – in rural areas.
Largest net gains in Brisbane, five times
greater than next ranked Canberra.
Main sinks: Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast,
South Eastern-NSW, Outer Adelaide, Far
North, South West-WA.
14
Table 2.7: Internal migration in Australia, labour force, 2001-2006
Migration group
Scale of movement
Comments/Implications
Full time
614,000 movers – 52% intrastate.
Very tight distribution in Australia of SDs
experiencing net migration gains for this group,
related to the distribution of areas offering abundant
full time employment opportunities. These areas
defined by resource development, especially along
Queensland coast, and in regional areas of NSW and
Victoria.
Sydney lost net 26,600, four times greater
than next ranked Adelaide.
Brisbane’s net gain was 18,000, six times
greater than next ranked Canberra.
Main sinks: Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast,
Mackay, South Eastern-NSW, Far North,
South West-WA.
Part time
250,000 movers – 57.1% intrastate.
Sydney recorded net loss of 19,500 – more
than 20 times greater than that for Darwin.
Brisbane and Perth only capitals with net
gains.
Often a correlation between areas with net gain for full
time employed movers and those with net gains for
part time employed movers.
Exception is mining centres in remote areas where
opportunities for part time employment are limited.
Main sinks: Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast,
Hunter, South West-WA, Outer Adelaide,
Richmond-Tweed.
Unemployed
68,000 movers, of which 55.9% were
intrastate moves.
Mobility of unemployed can overcome mismatches
between job vacancies and available workforce.
Net losses in Darwin, Canberra and Perth
negligible compared with the net loss of
5,700 for Sydney.
Regions with net gains are reasonably restricted to the
east coast, from Wide Bay-Burnett to the western SDs
bordering on Melbourne, all of Tasmania, near
Adelaide SDs and the South West of Western
Australia.
Brisbane had largest net gain of 1,700.
Main sinks:
Gold Coast, Wide BayBurnett,
Mid-North
Coast,
Hunter,
Sunshine Coast, Richmond-Tweed.
Not in labour force
538,000 movers, of which 60.2 percent
were intrastate moves.
Only Brisbane (5,655) and Hobart (1,140)
experienced net gains.
Sydney had a net loss of 41,900 compared
with 9,500 for Melbourne.
Some of largest net losses occurred in remote areas
where remaining in situ is not an option once a person
leaves the labour force.
There are striking similarities between patterns of net
migration for this group and that of 65 years and over
group.
Main sinks:
Wide Bay-Burnett, Gold
Coast, Mid-North Coast, Sunshine Coast,
South West-WA, Hunter, RichmondTweed.
2.12
SUMMARY
This chapter has presented a comprehensive picture of internal migration in Australia
between 2001 and 2006. The analyses have assessed mobility based on demography,
birthplace and human capital. Internal migration analyses of this kind ultimately show how
the population has been redistributed, notwithstanding the fact that the role played by recent
international migration is overlooked, because migrants who arrived in Australia after 2001
are not included in the analysis of mobility in the 2001-06 period, even though they may have
participated in the 2006 census. Although the impact immigration has had on influencing the
distribution of population in Australia is not fully accounted for in the current analysis, but is
15
nevertheless and impact that policy makers need to understand. A number of significant
observations have been generated which are worth recapitulating.

Huge net internal migration losses have been experienced in Sydney. Its only net gain
was 15-24 year olds. Even with this group, it experienced the lowest net migration
gain of all capital cities. It is clear that aspects of Sydney’s environment – be they
economic or social – impact negatively in attracting and keeping people.

Melbourne levels of net migration loss for most variables were much less than those
for Sydney, often up to one fifth the levels occurring in Sydney.

Brisbane was the standout net internal migration capital. It experienced gains across
almost all areas – and only recorded losses in mining and primary industry employees.

For the mainly non-English speaking group (MNESC) mobility, Melbourne showed a
balanced situation between arrivals and departures during the 2001-06 period.

Of all the groups considered, the 15-24 years group is the most unique. The numbers
in this age group were larger than for any other age group. It showed net migration
growth in all the capital cities and one other SD, and losses everywhere else.

The largest mobility group, numerically, was Year 12 education or less, including no
schooling, with 1.4 million movers between 2001 and 2006.

Three socio-economic groups – movers with a bachelor degree or higher, professional
and managerial occupations and high income – recorded more interstate moves than
intrastate moves.

The only other group for which interstate moves exceeded intrastate moves was for
persons born in mainly non-English speaking countries.

Large net losses for persons employed in Clerical and Sales and Community and
personal services occurred in many SDs, due to widespread contraction in services
provisions in rural Australia. This occurred for no other occupation categories.

Only one category – persons employed in primary industry – had net migration losses
in every capital city.

Net migration for persons in mining industry was negative in all capital cities, except
Perth, illustrating the prevalence of fly in-fly out employment conditions for this
mobility group.
16
CHAPTER 3. MEASURING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERNAL
MIGRATION, 2001-2006
3.1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the previous chapter was to analyse internal migration in Australia, to
show how internal migration works to redistribute population. The emphasis was on the
absolute numbers involved, as the numbers, and the size of flows, is an important first step in
identifying any policy responses to emerging internal migration trends. However, internal
migration relativities, independent of the raw numbers, can provide some insights into the
impacts of mobility on population redistribution. Therefore, in this chapter we measure the
effectiveness of internal migration, and relate its impact to actual population change that
occurred in between 2001 and 2006.
A further emphasis in this chapter is on net intrastate and net interstate migration,
especially in the discussion on migration effectiveness, with the aim of showing the most
effective statistical divisions in terms of internal migration, as well as the least effective in
terms of capital city statistical division discussion, and the “top” SDs outside the capital
cities. Statistical divisions with high MERs – generally above 15 percent – represent “hot
spots” for intrastate and interstate internal migration.
Not all the demographic and human capital variables addressed in Chapter 2 are
covered in this analysis.
3.1.1
Data compatibility issues
The 2001 population data were derived from CDATA01, which has created some
issues related to boundary and data definition changes. Substantial boundary changes
occurred in several SDs in the south east of Queensland. As a result, the Moreton statistical
division was subdivided into three new SDs – Gold Coast, West Moreton and Sunshine
Coast. In addition, the Brisbane SD was extended into the former Moreton statistical
division. Accordingly, to facilitate the analysis, the 2006 statistical divisions of West
Moreton, Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast have been aggregated for comparison with the
former Moreton SD, while no adjustment has been made for the fact that Brisbane in 2006
included a portion of the former Moreton SD. It is important, therefore, to recognise that
there is a certain “ball park” element in some of the 2001-2006 comparisons.
Comparisons between 2001 and 2006 for income need to recognise that inflation will
have affected the numbers in any income category in 2006 compared with 2001, as well as
the impact of bracket creep caused by salary increase, and increasing numbers of persons
being employed at higher salary levels.
3.2
MIGRATION EFFECTIVENESS
How effective internal migration is in redistributing population is measured using the
migration effectiveness ratio (MER). It relates net migration (the difference between arrivals
and departures in any area) to total migration (the sum of arrivals and departures in any area),
expressed as a percentage, and produces values between 100 and minus 100. Generally
MERs less than 15 indicate relatively ineffective population redistribution due to migration,
and values greater than 15 indicate that migration has a significantly increasing effect in
terms of redistributing population in any area.
17
The interpretation of the Migration Effectiveness Ratio can be illustrated by an
example. For a given area, the number of arrivals during a prescribed period was 4000,
balanced by 3000 departures during the same period. Total migration is the sum of the two –
viz., 4000 + 3000 = 7000. Net migration (NM) is the difference between arrivals and
departures, that is 4000 – 3000 = 1000. Therefore:
MER = NM*100/Total migration
=1000*100/7000
=14.28 percent
This means that for every 100 migrants the net gain is 14.28. A negative MER indicates the
net loss experienced for every 100 migrants.
The MER allows areas to be compared to determine whether migration in one area is
more effective than in others, or whether migration is the same in two areas, regardless of the
fact that the actual numbers in each area may be different.
3.3
INTERNAL MIGRATION EFFECTIVENESS, 2001-2006
This section examines the impact of a range of variables in terms of their
effectiveness in causing population redistribution, and the impact that net migration has
population change for specific variables in the five years to 2006. The main report should be
consulted to see the data on which the main findings presented in this chapter are based.
These tables allows internal migration to be seen outside the raw numbers, and enables
comparisons between SDs on the basis of migration effectiveness and the relationship
between net migration and population change
3.3.1
Mobility of total population
Based on the migration effectiveness ratios, a number of points can be derived from
the table:

Only three capital cities have positive net migration MERs. Brisbane has the highest
net migration MER of 13.7, indicating a net gain of 13.7 percent from all internal
migrants during 2001-2006. The rate for Brisbane is over two times that reported in
Hobart and more than seven times that for Perth.

In the case of Brisbane, its interstate MER is very high at 30.2 percent. Brisbane and
Perth are the only capitals with positive interstate MERs, although that for Perth is
very low (1.9). It is clear that the driving force for Brisbane’s growth through internal
migration is through interstate migration, and in this respect it outperforms every
other capital.

Hobart’s net migration is significantly due to intrastate migration. Its intrastate MER
was 19.0, compared with an interstate MER of -0.7 percent.

Five of the capital cities reported negative net migration MERs during the 2001-2006
period. The standout case is Sydney. Its MER was negative 33.1 percent, indicating
that 33.1 percent of all internal migrants were departures. Relative to the other
capitals, this level is more than four times the MER for Adelaide (-7.2) and nearly six
times that for Melbourne (-6.2).

Significantly for Sydney, its net migration MER is matched by its intrastate (-31.8)
and interstate (-34.3) MERs.

To a certain extent, the same situation occurred in Adelaide, although its net interstate
migration MER was higher than its intrastate MER.
18

For Melbourne SD, intrastate migration is a more effective contributor to net
migration loss than interstate migration. Its intrastate MER was -12.7, compared with
an interstate migration MER of -1.6 percent. People are leaving Melbourne for mor
attractive locations within the state, rather than beyond it.

Darwin is interesting in that its net migration loss is countered by an intrastate MER
of 30.5 percent. Its intrastate MER contrasts with an interstate MER of -8.9 percent.
Hence, movement into the city from its hinterland is as significant for Darwin as is
migration from it to interstate locations.

For both Hobart and Darwin, rural-urban drift is a significant factor in redistributing
population, and in each of the jurisdictions the size of the migration may have policy
ramifications.
Outside the capital cities, six SDs reported net migration MERs greater than that for
Brisbane. Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast had MERs greater than 20 percent for net
migration, indicating the existence of powerful forces influencing internal migration to these
regions. Similar processes are at work elsewhere. Wide Bay-Burnett (18.9) is adjacent to the
Sunshine Coast, and Outer Adelaide (17.9) accommodates much of the overflow from
Adelaide as well as containing many “dormitory” towns and suburbs, and South West-WA
(18.7) incorporates the expanding Mandurah and Margaret River regions. In New South
Wales, the Mid-North Coast (13.0), South Eastern (10.5) and Richmond-Tweed (10.1), along
with Barwon (10.0) in Victoria owe their high migration effectiveness ratios to retirement
flows and people seeking sea change and tree change environments. The significance of
some areas in influencing internal migration within their own states is shown by high
intrastate MERs for South West-WA, Outer Adelaide, Mid-North Coast, Richmond Tweed
and Barwon.
On the other hand, in other SDs, interstate migration acts as a powerful agent in
effecting population change, so that Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast, Wide Bay-Burnett and
Mackay each have interstate MERs greater than 32 percent, higher than that recorded in
Brisbane. In each of these SDs, the existence of characteristics, most typically related to
environment, acts as important factors in the internal migration process. In the case of
Mackay, these factors are at work, but the impact of mining in its hinterland also contributes
to the effectiveness of interstate migration in changing its population.
3.3.2
Mobility of males and females in total population
The characteristics of mobility for males and females are similar. Indeed, the
correlation coefficients between males and females for net migration, intrastate migration and
interstate migration MERS are 0.976, 0.861 and 0.983 respectively. Further, the key points
made for the effectiveness of migration of total population in redistributing the population
can also be made for male and female internal migration, because males and females are two
subgroups of the total population, and each of the male and female subgroups represents
about 50 percent of all movers. This is not, necessarily, the case with other groups.
3.3.3
Mobility of persons aged 15-24
Each of the capital cities recorded positive MERs for net migration for this age group.
Brisbane and Melbourne reported the highest net migration MERs of 35.1 and 33.8 percent
respectively. MERs of greater than 20 percent occurred in Canberra, Perth and Adelaide
SDs. This age group, through internal migration, has a positive effect on population change
in each of the capital city statistical divisions, with the proviso that the effectiveness is
substantially lower in Darwin, Sydney and Hobart than it is in the other capital cities.
19
In the case of net intrastate, each capital city has a positive MER, suggesting that
education facilities, both for school and university, play a role in the intrastate internal
migration process for these capitals. However, this is not the case when interstate MERs are
assessed. Negative MERs prevail in Adelaide, Sydney and Hobart, and relatively low MERs
occur in Perth and Darwin. MERs above 20 percent were reported for Brisbane Canberra and
Melbourne. The suggestion here is that there are factors operating at the national level to
create different effectiveness levels within this group in terms of interstate migration.
Clearly, job opportunities, quality of lifestyle, as well as education opportunities, vary among
the capitals and thereby influence disproportionately, the internal migration process.
Beyond the capital cities, only two statistical divisions had positive net migration
effectiveness ratios – Gold Coast and Northern-Qld. In terms in intrastate MERs, there were
six non capital city SDs with positive MERs, with the largest occurring in Northern-Qld
(19.6), Richmond-Tweed (11.2) and Northern-Tas (8.6). The situation for net interstate
migration by this group is more interesting. There were 13 SDs with a positive interstate
migration effectiveness ratio, and with seven of these the MER was greater than 20 percent.
The Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast had net interstate MERs of 50.5 and 26.2 percent
respectively. Here, it would appear that a combination of lifestyle, education and occupation
factors are at work to enhance the effectiveness of this group’s internal migration in affecting
population distribution. In the case of Mackay (33.4), Northern-Qld (28.8), Far North (20.7)
and North West (20.4), both in Queensland, the role of employment opportunities especially
in the mining industry, influences the migration by this group into these areas.
3.3.4
Mobility of persons aged 45-64
The 45-64 years age group may be categorised as the baby boomer group in this
analysis. For net migration effectiveness, this group exhibits some very interesting
characteristics. In the case of the capital cities, this group has a positive effect in only Hobart
and Brisbane. Sydney is unique, in that for all internal migrants in this age group, 52.5
percent are leavers, more than twice the rate applying to Melbourne and Canberra. Clearly,
there exists in Sydney, at levels not experienced in the other capitals, push factors that are
driving this group from the capital. The high MER for net migration in Sydney is matched by
equally high MERs for intrastate and interstate migration within this group. Whether this
group leaves for interstate or intrastate locations, their effectiveness in shaping Sydney’s
population is between 50 and 55 percent.
With the other capital cities, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth recorded
negative MERs for intrastate migration. Brisbane experiences different impacts from
intrastate and interstate mobility – its intrastate MER is -18 percent while its interstate MER
is 28.8 percent.
Outside of the capital city SDs, there were 11 statistical divisions which experienced
effective net migration greater than 20 percent between 2001 and 2006. Highest MERs
occurred in Wide Bay-Burnett (36.1), South West-WA (33.9) and Sunshine Coast (30.5).
MERs greater than 20.4 percent for net migration were reported in Richmond-Tweed, Yorke
and Lower North (in SA), South Eastern-NSW, Gold Coast, East Gippsland, Outer Adelaide,
Southern (in Tasmania) and Mid-North Coast.
The baby boomer group has been shown to have a propensity for both intrastate and
interstate mobility. There were 14 statistical divisions intrastate MERs greater than 20
percent. The majority of these are sea change SDs, with two – Goulburn and Loddon –
qualifying as tree change localities. Clearly, in these SDs intrastate migration by 45-64 year
olds is impacting effectively, and positively, on population change. Of these 14 SDs, only
20
seven had positive MERs for interstate migration, and with the exception of Wide BayBurnett, the interstate MER was significantly less than the intrastate MER. Therefore, there
is essentially a different group of SDs with high levels of effective interstate migration. What
is especially significant in the high interstate MER group is the presence of three Tasmanian
SDs – Southern (50.0), Mersey-Lyell (31.4) and Northern (29.0). In these SDs, the
effectiveness of interstate migration on population change needs to be recognised. Just as
significantly is the fact that the remainder of this group of statistical divisions are located in
Queensland, and with the exception of West Moreton and Darling Downs, they are coastal
SDs, extending the length of the Queensland coast.
3.3.5
Mobility of persons aged 65 and over
This group is essentially retired and therefore not in the labour force. In terms of net
migration only two capitals – Hobart and Brisbane – had positive MERs. Only seven other
SDs had higher net migration MERs than Hobart’s. Among the capitals, the largest negative
MERs occurred in Sydney, where net loss from internal migration represented 46.2 percent of
all internal migrants, more than twice the rate recorded for Darwin, more than 2.5 times the
rate for Melbourne, and nearly three times that for Canberra. As has been noted for other
groups, Sydney has similar effective migration rates whether it is net migration, intrastate or
interstate migration that is considered.
With intrastate MERs, only Hobart (30.8) and Darwin (42.4) had positive ratios.
Among the other capitals, Melbourne and Perth had the highest negative MERs for intrastate
migration - -26.0 and -13.7 respectively. Interstate migration among this group was
particularly effective in influencing population change in Brisbane, and to a lesser extent in
Hobart and Perth.
Beyond the capital cities, internal net migration effectiveness was at positive levels in
31 SDs. For this age group, the significance of retirement options in the Mandurah, Bunbury,
Busselton, Margaret River and Augusta, and points further south along the coast of WA, is
clear. Similar situations are influencing the effectiveness of net migration in Goulburn,
Northern (in Tasmania), Sunshine Coast, Gippsland, Outer Adelaide, Central Highlands (in
Victoria), Mersey-Lyell in Tasmania, Mid-North Coast in New South Wales, and Darling
Downs and Wide Bay-Burnett in Queensland.
Net migration is a combination of intrastate and interstate migration. There were 16
SDs with intrastate MERs greater than 15 percent, split almost evenly between coastal SDs
and inland SDs. The SDs with the highest intrastate MERs are coastal – South West-WA
(36.3), Richmond-Tweed (33.6), Mid-North Coast (33.5) and Hunter (24.8). The lowest four
in the group are inland statistical divisions – Goulburn (17.0), Murrumbidgee (16.7), Darling
Downs (15.8) and Central West-NSW (15.1).
Of the 14 statistical divisions interstate MERs greater than 15 percent, only three –
Darling Downs, Wide Bay-Burnett and South West-WA – also had high MERs for intrastate
mobility. Those SDs with interstate MERs greater than 30 percent are, with the exception of
Mersey-Lyell, all located in Queensland. Those with interstate MERs between 15 and 29.1
percent are slightly more widespread, in Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia and the
remainder in Queensland.
3.4
INTERNAL MIGRATION AMONG THE WORKFORCE, 2001-2006
This section examines the effectiveness of internal migration employed (full time plus
part time) and unemployed persons.
21
3.4.1
Mobility of Employed Persons
The analysis presents two salient points relating to the effectiveness of employed
person mobility in the capital cities. Firstly, for every 100 internal migrants arriving or
leaving Brisbane, there was a net gain of 16 employed persons, while Sydney experienced a
net loss of 24 workers. Clearly, in terms of employment, Brisbane benefits strongly from
internal migration whereas Sydney experiences significant losses.
Intrastate migration of employed persons has impacted most on population change in
Darwin and Hobart, with intrastate MERs of 23.3 and 22.7 percent respectively, indicating
the presence of pull factors in these capitals which contrast to the push factors at work in
Sydney, which had a negative MER of 20.0. In NSW workers are effectively seeking
employment opportunities elsewhere in the state.
In the case of interstate migration, the highest MER was in Brisbane (29.8). Sydney’s
negative rate, at 27.1 percent, indicates that mobile workers are predominantly seeking work
interstate rather than in Sydney.
In the non capital city SDs, the MER analysis shows the influence of Queensland, and
especially Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast and Mackay, in the provision of work opportunities
for mobile employed persons. Their effectiveness ratios are also greater than that recorded
for Brisbane. In effect, it means that these four SDs exert of powerful influence on the
internal migration process in effecting population redistribution of the working population.
It is worth noting the geography of negative MERs greater than 15 percent, indicating
areas losing employed persons at a rate which has a real, and effective, impact on their
regions. These areas are heavily dependent on rural industries and pastoralism for their well
being, and are confined to the western border areas of Queensland, the northern border areas
of New South Wales, the Wimmera in Victoria and the Upper Great Southern SD in Western
Australia. In these locations, internal migration of employed persons is having a significant
negative impact on local population levels.
In terms of intrastate migration in non metropolitan areas, migration of employed
persons has generated effective inflow levels in many of the coastal statistical divisions that
are popular destinations for persons seeking alternatives to capital city living. These SDs are
legitimately “sea change” SDs, and attract employed persons to produce the developing
infrastructure, particularly housing, and to service the maintenance needs of growing
retirement populations in these areas.
Employed persons moving interstate generate the highest effective migration rates in
SDs different from those with high MERs for intrastate migration. Of all the SDs with
interstate MERs greater than 15 percent only one, Southern (32.8) in Tasmania, is not located
in Queensland. The dominance of Queensland in this regard is another illustration of the
impact that development in the south east corner of Queensland, and along its coastline, has
on influencing the internal migration process in Australia.
3.4.2
Mobility of Unemployed Persons
For unemployed persons’ intrastate mobility, only Sydney and Melbourne have
negative MERs, in contrast to Darwin and Hobart, and to a lesser extent Perth which attract
unemployed persons from their hinterlands. In respect to interstate mobility of unemployed
persons, MERs for the capital cities reinforce the powerful roles they play in Australian
internal migration, in that Brisbane exerts significant attraction, while Sydney and Darwin,
and to a lesser extent Canberra and Perth, bring push factors into play.
22
Outside the capital cities, the most effective net migration gains have occurred
principally in the Queensland (Wide Bay-Burnett, Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast), and MidNorth Coast and Richmond-Tweed in NSW, and Northern in Tasmania. The intrastate
mobility of unemployed persons is particularly effective in New South Wales, both along the
north coast and to the south of Sydney. In Queensland, it is clear that intrastate mobility for
unemployed persons has little real effect on population redistribution.
Interstate MERs greater than 15 percent were reported in eight non metropolitan
statistical divisions. The highest were in Wide Bay-Burnett (44.3), Sunshine Coast (40.3)
and Gold Coast (36.7) and the Tasmanian SDs of Southern (42.6), Mersey-Lyell (34.9) and
Northern (17.5. In summary, unemployed persons are having a significant positive impact on
the internal migration process especially in south east Queensland, and Tasmania. There is,
however, a much larger number of SDs scattered throughout Australia where the internal
migration process is significantly impacted negatively by unemployed persons.
3.4.3
Mobility of Persons employed in primary industries
This group is a quite specialised group in that areas from which it might be pushed
and areas to which it might be attracted are, locationally, quite clearly defined. The analysis
shows that, as might be expected, patterns defined by actual mobility numbers are similar to
those defined by measures of migration effectiveness. In the capital cities, this group finds
no attraction, and the internal migration process pushes them to non metropolitan locations,
so that outside the capital cities there are 40 SDs where positive net migration numbers and
effective migration ratios exist.
3.4.4
Mobility of Persons employed in mining industries
Only Perth had a positive MER for net migration, due to the large fly in-fly out
mining workforce living in Perth. Outside of the capital cities, only 15 SDs had positive net
migration levels for movers employed in mining. The impact of Mackay and the Pilbara on
the internal migration process for persons employed in mining is significant, but in terms of
migration effectiveness, the influence of Mackay is nearly half as great again as that exerted
by the Pilbara region. This is an illustration of the significance of Queensland in terms of
resource development in Australia and its impact on internal mobility.
Seven of the nine non metropolitan SDs with high MERs for net migration also have
high MERs for intrastate migration. They include Loddon, Ovens-Murray, East Gippsland
and Gippsland in Victoria, Mersey-Lyell in Tasmania, Illawarra in New South Wales and the
Northern Territory-Balance SD.
In terms of interstate migration, there are nine key SDs which impact significantly on
the mobility of persons employed in mining industries. The most significant of these is
Mackay (60.9), Western District (48.8) in Victoria, and Northern-SA, South Eastern-WA,
Loddon, Far West in NSW, Pilbara, Fitzroy and North West (Queensland) with MERs above
20 percent. The analysis shows that there is a group of SDs in which mining activity impacts
positively on the internal migration process between the states, while there are a number of
SDs within Tasmania, New South Wales, Victoria and the Northern Territory which have a
more localised effect in terms of the intrastate migration process for this group of movers.
3.4.5
Mobility of Persons employed in secondary industries
Australia’s secondary industry has undergone significant structural adjustment since
the 1970s, and its impact on internal migration patterns has been enormous. Persons
employed in secondary industries are exiting most of the capitals at significant rates. The
best example is Sydney, where net migration effectiveness is negative 41.2 percent. Lower
23
negative MERs prevail in Canberra, Melbourne, Darwin and Adelaide. Secondary industry
opportunities in Brisbane exert a positive impact on the internal migration process for this
mobility group, generating a MER of 19.8 percent. MER levels in Perth and Hobart were
less than 0.5 and 0.2 respectively of that for Brisbane.
In terms of the intrastate migration component of net migration, Darwin, Hobart and
Perth have a positive effect on internal migration for this group of movers. In the other
capitals, negative MERs prevail. For net interstate migration, the impact of Brisbane is
substantial. Its MER of 45.1 percent represents nearly four times the positive effect exerted
by Perth. Sydney, in contrast, had a MER of -47.4 percent.
Outside the capitals net migration MERs greater than 15 percent occurred in six
statistical divisions, with four located in Queensland –Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Mackay
and Fitzroy. The effectiveness of net migration in these statistical divisions does suggest a
developing tendency for secondary activities to prevail increasingly in near capital city areas,
rather than in the capital cities, and in areas associated with mining.
In considering the intrastate component of net migration, there were nine SDs with
migration effectiveness ratios greater than 15 percent of which two thirds were in New South
Wales. The remaining SDs were in WA, SA and Victoria, where there is clearly sufficient
economic activity to impact positively on the internal migration process.
In considering interstate migration, the impact of Queensland was substantial. Of the
12 non metropolitan SDs with interstate migration MERs greater than 18 percent, the top nine
SDs were in Queensland, with MERs ranging from 55.0 percent 27.3 percent, extending from
the south east corner of the State and along its entire coastline. Outside of this group, high
MERs occurred in Southern SD in Tasmania (26.7), South West in WA (23.0) and Outer
Adelaide (18.2).
3.4.6
Mobility of Persons employed in tertiary industries
This mobility group is based around occupations that are generally defined as service
type occupations. In the capital cities, net migration MERs are positive for all cities except
Sydney (-20.5) and Adelaide (-8.4). The highest MER is again in Brisbane (16.9). Apart
from Sydney and Adelaide, the suggestion is that tertiary services are impacting positively on
the internal migration process for this group of movers. In terms in intrastate migration, very
high positive MERs prevail in Hobart (24.8) and Darwin (26.0). However, in the case of
interstate migration, only Brisbane (27.4) and Canberra (8.8) have a significant, and positive,
effect on the migration process.
Beyond the capital cities, only Gold Coast (24.2) and Sunshine Coast (23.5) had
MERs above 15 percent. The impact of economic activity on internal migration in these two
SDs is way ahead of that in the other SDs. In terms of intrastate mobility for persons
employed in tertiary industries, a cluster of coastal SDs in New South Wales – RichmondTweed, Mid-North Coast, Hunter and South Eastern – have sufficiently developed
infrastructure and demand to generate MERs ranging from 15.0 to 29.7. Elsewhere, only
Outer Adelaide had a MER above 15 percent.
In considering interstate migration, the picture that emerges yet again is the role
played by Queensland in effectively influencing internal migration. There are seven SDs
with MERs greater than 15 percent, and only one (Southern, in Tasmania) is not located in
Queensland.
24
3.4.7
Mobility of professionals and managers
This group of movers have been selected because they represent possibly the most
highly paid, and qualified, group of movers considered in the Report.
For the capital city statistical divisions, there is a clear dichotomy in terms of net
migration effectiveness. Sydney and Adelaide have experienced substantial net losses in this
group, in contrast to Canberra and Brisbane. Interestingly, Brisbane is ranked second,
compared with its more typical top ranking in most of the previous analyses.
The situation for intrastate migration has been noted on a number of earlier occasions.
Both Hobart and Darwin have positive intrastate MERs, highlighting a scarcity of
opportunities elsewhere in these states for professionals and managers who only wish to
move within their present state. In these cases, it is predominantly a case of the capital city,
or move interstate or remain in situ. This is not the case in the other states, which have a
greater number of potential employment opportunities distributed throughout their
jurisdiction. Hence, the tendency for this group in these states has been to leave the capital
and move to other localities within the state. This scenario plays an important role in the
internal migration process in the case of Sydney, with a MER of 23.1 percent, Adelaide
(19.4) and Melbourne (12.4).
In the case of interstate migration, the group’s migration patterns are similar to those
demonstrated by a number of other groups, in that there is a real aversion to Sydney and
Adelaide, in particular, and a positive attraction to Brisbane and Canberra. The patterns are
verification of insufficient opportunities in some states, and an increasingly abundant supply
of opportunities in other states, with a subsequent impact on the internal migration process.
Outside of the capital cities, the highest effective migration rates occurred in Sunshine
Coast (29.7), South Eastern-NSW (23.1) and Gold Coast (21.1) as well Outer Adelaide,
South West-WA, Southern in Tasmania and Mid-North Coast.
For intrastate mobility, positive MERs greater than 15 percent were reported for
Richmond-Tweed, South Eastern and Mid-North Coast, all in NSW, Outer Adelaide and
Eyre, in South Australia, South West-WA and Sunshine Coast. For interstate mobility,
Queensland again dominated, although the highest MER (48.7) was for Southern SD in
Tasmania. High MERs also occurred in Sunshine Coast (43.9), Gold Coast (35.8), Wide
Bay-Burnett (32.4), Mackay (26.6) and Far North (21.1) in Queensland, and in South
Eastern-NSW (18.3) and Lower Great Southern (17.5) in Western Australia.
3.4.8
Mobility of technical and tradespersons
The most attractive capital cities, in terms of net migration effectiveness were
Brisbane and Perth, indicating that activity in each of these capitals is clearly attractive to
persons with technical and trades skills. Hobart and Darwin also reported positive MERs,
while negative MERs prevailed in the other capital city statistical divisions. Sydney’s MER
was -33.9 percent. Highest net migration MERs in non capital SDs occurred in Queensland,
in Gold Coast, Mackay and Sunshine Coast, and Outer Adelaide. These are areas with
developing infrastructure, especially in housing, and clearly generate demand for the skills
these persons possess.
In terms of intrastate migration, the highest MERs among the capital cities were
recorded for Hobart and Darwin, with lower MERs in Perth and Brisbane. In the regions,
highest MERs were concentrated in New South Wales, with isolated SDs in SA, Victoria and
Queensland.
25
For interstate migration, Brisbane (38.4) and Perth (14.4) stand out. Both are
powerful magnets for persons from interstate with these occupations. Sydney had a MER of
minus 40.6, while Adelaide and Melbourne had MERs at around a fifth and lower than this
level.
Outside the capital cities, there were eleven SDs with net MERs between 51.0 percent
and 16.4 percent. Six of the top nine were in Queensland, with the others in Tasmania and
Western Australia. These results demonstrate again the effectiveness of the coastal regions of
Queensland, relative to other parts of Australia, in influencing the internal migration process,
especially its interstate component, in Australia.
3.4.9
Mobility of operators, drivers and labourers
In terms of net migration effectiveness, the highest MERs among the capital city
statistical divisions occurred in Brisbane and Perth, the same situation which prevailed for the
technical and trades internal migrants, suggesting that these two groups play tandem roles in
terms of demand for their skills. Sydney reported the highest effective loss of internal
migrants in this occupational category.
Outside the capital cities, high MERs occurred in resource development areas, while
there were also relatively high MERs in several near capital city locations.
In terms of the intrastate component of internal migration, Hobart and Darwin again
reported the highest positive MERs for this mobility group, with the highest negative MER
occurring in Sydney SD. Beyond the capitals, there were nine SDs with intrastate MERs
greater than 15 percent, and with these retirement opportunities in coastal areas and resource
development in other locations, appear to be driving the mobility process.
In the capital cities, only Brisbane (43.3) and Perth (16.0) generated significant
positive MERs for interstate mobility by this group. In contrast, Sydney’s MER was negative
50.3 percent, compared with -18.7 for Hobart and -10.9 for Canberra. Beyond the capitals,
there were 14 SDs with interstate MERs greater than 15 percent. The effectiveness of
Queensland in driving the internal migration process within this group is evident in the fact
that 11 of these 14 SDs are situated in Queensland, where life style factors and employment
opportunities from mining each play a significant role.
3.4.10 Mobility of high income earners
High income earners are defined here as persons who earned $1,000 or more per
week. Among the capital city statistical divisions, the highest net MERs for this group
occurred in Brisbane (9.8) and Canberra (6.2), compared with lowest MERs of -19.9 and 17.1 in Sydney and Adelaide respectively. Beyond the capitals, net MERs greater than 15
percent occurred in just seven SDs. In SDs such as Mackay and Pilbara, the driving force is
clearly economic, but in Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast, Moreton, Outer Adelaide, South WestWA, and to a lesser extent South Eastern-NSW their location on the periphery of capital
cities suggest that mobility may also be influenced by prevailing housing opportunities
offering space and amenity not available in the nearby capital cities. The exodus of high
income earners from Sydney, Adelaide and Melbourne to intrastate locations is pronounced,
while rural-urban migration occurs in the Northern Territory and Tasmania.
In the regions, the most attractive localities for high income earners moving intrastate
are predominantly in New South Wales – Richmond-Tweed, Mid-North Coast, South Eastern
and Hunter. Victoria has two “hotspots” (Barwon and Loddon), as does Queensland
(Sunshine Coast and Mackay) while South Australia has Outer Adelaide. There would seem
to be a combination of factors, including employment, retirement (sea change/tree change),
26
and housing opportunities in near city locations, that are driving the internal migration
process in relation to this mobility group.
In terms of interstate migration for high income earners, Brisbane and Canberra stand
out in terms of their effectiveness in attracting this group from interstate, while, as has
usually been the case, Sydney, along with Adelaide, has experienced very high levels of
effective outmigration for this group. In the regions it is again the case that statistical
divisions in Queensland demonstrate a real effectiveness in terms of attracting interstate
migrants, as does Southern in Tasmania, South Eastern-NSW and Pilbara.
3.4.11 Mobility of highly qualified persons
In the capital cities, Canberra (7.1) and Brisbane (6.5) have approximately the same
effective impact in terms of attracting persons with a bachelor degree or higher. More
significant, however, is the effectiveness of other capitals, notably Sydney and Adelaide, in
repelling this group. Beyond the capital cities, SDs with high MERs are fairly evenly spread
amongst the states, except Victoria. It needs to be recognised that people carry their
qualifications through various stages of life, so that high levels of mobility in some areas may
not be influenced by employment opportunities, but rather by highly qualified retirees.
In terms of intrastate migration to and from the capitals, Darwin and Hobart exert the
greatest effective attraction on this group, while Sydney and Adelaide have the greatest
impact in terms of driving an urban to regional migration. In the remainder of each of the
states, the most effective positive intrastate migration occurred in New South Wales and
South Australia.
In the context of interstate migration by this group, the highest positive MERs
occurred in Brisbane (13.8) and Canberra (7.2). It is clear that the employment opportunities
in both capitals are driving the internal migration process in this instance, in contrast to the
situation in Adelaide and Sydney. In the regions of each state, there are a number of SDs
which attract internal migrants with high qualification levels, including Southern in
Tasmania, Sunshine Coast, Far North, Mackay, Wide Bay-Burnett, Gold Coast, Lower Great
Southern in WA and South Eastern-NSW.
3.4.12 Mobility of recently arrived migrants
Recent migrants are defined as those persons who arrived in Australia after 1996.
From a net migration perspective, the capital city which experienced the greatest amount of
effective internal migration (20.9) with this group was Brisbane. In Canberra, the migration
effectiveness ratio was 12.0 percent, while much lower migration effectiveness for this group
occurred in Melbourne and Perth. In contrast, Sydney had a negative MER for this group of 27.3, while much lower MERs were reported for Hobart, Darwin and Adelaide.
Outside of the capital city SDs, the influence of Queensland, New South Wales and
Victoria in terms of internal migration effectiveness with this group is apparent.
Notwithstanding these regional “hotspots”, the highest MER was 41 percent in Southern SD
in Tasmania. Outer Adelaide and South West-WA also had MERs greater than 15 percent.
In considering the situation for intrastate migration with this group, it is important to
be cognisant of the relatively low number of movers involved. Therefore, although Adelaide
and Darwin had high positive MERs, they are linked to low numbers. Sydney recorded the
highest negative MER of 19.4 percent, while levels of losses in Hobart, Melbourne and Perth
were considerably lower than in Sydney. Statistical divisions which reported effective
intrastate mobility by recently arrived migrants were predominantly located in New South
Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia.
27
As noted in Chapter 2, recently arrived migrants show a greater propensity to move
interstate than intrastate, in contrast to the total population. Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne
and Perth each generated positive MERs for net interstate migration for recently arrived
migrants. On the other hand, Sydney’s MER of -29.5 indicates the significant role it plays in
the internal migration process in providing “push” factors to cause recent arrivals to move
interstate. Outside the capital cities, the power of Queensland in attracting recent migrants
from interstate is again demonstrated in the data. Of the 11 SDs with MERs greater than 15
percent, six of them are located in Queensland, extending from the near Brisbane locations
along the coast to the Cape York Peninsula. Relatively high MERs in other states are based
on relatively low net numbers.
3.4.13 Mobility of longer term migrants
These migrants arrived in Australia prior to 1997, and their numbers are much larger
than those for recent migrants. Therefore the MERs generated are more indicative of how
this group fits into the internal migration process in Australia.
Within the capital city SD group, only Hobart (15.0) and Brisbane (10.8) have
positive MERs for net migration. This role for Hobart in the internal migration process is
unique. Of the remaining capital cities Sydney had the highest negative MER of -39.9 along
with Adelaide (-19.0). Outside the capital city SDs, there are 22 SDs with MERs greater than
15, with a fairly even distribution between the eastern seaboard states. A further three are
located in Tasmania, with two located in each of SA and WA.
In terms of mobility between the capital cities and their respective hinterlands, only
two capitals experienced a drift towards the cities – Hobart and Darwin. The greatest
effective exodus was from Sydney, with a MER of -44.5 percent, Melbourne (-28.8) and
Adelaide (-25.2). Intrastate mobility of long term migrants is most pronounced in New South
Wales, which has eight SDs with MERs above 15 percent, compared with six in Victoria. In
each of South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland there were two statistical
divisions with intrastate MERs of more than 15 percent.
In respect to interstate mobility of long term migrants, Brisbane generated a MER of
30.3 percent, compared with 15 percent for next ranked Hobart. Each of the other capitals
played a negative role in terms of interstate migration of long term migrants. Outside the
capital cities, the analysis for effectiveness is most interesting in Tasmania. Here there are
three SDs with MERs greater than 33 percent – Southern (59.6), Mersey-Lyell (46.1) and
Northern (33.6). Further, these MERs are associated with net migration levels ranging from
540 to 838, and clearly are likely to have implications in a number of respects. Apart from
Tasmania, the effectiveness of Queensland SDs is significant. Of the 13 SDs with MERs
greater than 15, eight are located in Queensland, extending from the south east corner of the
state, northwards along its entire coastline. The remaining two SDs with relatively high
MERs were located in Victoria.
3.4.14 Migration effectiveness, 2001-2006: Summary
The main purpose of the analysis in this chapter has been to move the emphasis to the
relativities of net migration, intrastate migration and interstate migration. The two
approaches – an emphasis on net migration in Chapter 2 and an emphasis on MERs in this
chapter – clearly complement each other, as both are different ways of defining the internal
migration process in Australia. The main conclusion emerging from this consideration is that
the main statistical divisions identified in Chapter 2 on the basis of actual numbers remain
unchanged, as does the general patterns of internal migration. This is not unsurprising as the
28
same underlying processes are still at work. However, the emphasis on relativities has
produced a number of interesting findings, and these are presented in Table 3.1.
29
Table 3.1: Some key findings from the MER analysis of internal migration, 2001-2006
The MER approach, with its emphasis on relativities, has highlighted……
SDs where small arrivals
and departures numbers
have nevertheless produced
high MERs
Tasmania:
Northern
Southern,
Mersey-Lyell,
Victoria: Barwon, Loddon, Goulburn
South Australia: Outer Adelaide, Yorke
and Lower North
For policy makers, these MERs may indicate
that “critical” thresholds are being approached.
May anticipate the arrival of a newer
demographic and changed infrastructure and
services demand.
In terms of intrastate migration, MER analysis suggests…..
Areas attractive to the
“locals”. Each state has
one, two, up to a handful of
attractive SDS.
NSW has the most – more on North coast
than on South Coast
Illustrates flight form “capital to coast”.
Central Victoria has a group of SDs
Sea change and tree change SDs.
Not many in Queensland
Queenslanders happy with their location – no
need to shift, even in retirement. Everywhere in
Queensland is “beautiful one day: perfect the
next”.
Darwin and Hobart effective destinations
for intrastate migration
A new dimension
internal migration
to
There is a “drift” from the cities
The flow to the regions is growing, in both the
young old cohort and the baby boomers. Has a
demand implication in affected regions.
In terms of interstate migration, MER analysis highlights…..
The
“power”
Queensland
Southern SD in Tasmania
of
The attractive power is located not just in
south east corner, but along entire coast.
Mobility process driven by retirement, selected
age, labour force and occupation groups.
Has generated a significant MER
Interstate migration has impacted on population
and economic turnaround during this decade
The approach that has been adopted in this chapter for the total population and a
number of subsets within it could be applied to the data presented in the next chapter for
international migrants who arrived in Australia after 1996. However, this has not been done,
mainly because the numbers are much smaller than those assessed in this chapter. However,
the data presented in the next chapter could be used to calculate migration effectiveness ratios
for recently arrived migrants at both their total population level, and for a range of subsets
within the group.
3.5
RELATING NET MIGRATION TO POPULATION CHANGE
A second approach to measuring the relative impact of internal migration on
population change is to compare the net migration for any variable in any area during a given
period to the actual population change (for the same variable) in the area during the same
period. In this section of the main Report tables presented have been subdivided according to
whether the statistical division experienced:


Net migration gain and total population gain
Net migration loss and total population gain
30


Net migration gain and total population loss
Net migration loss and total population loss
The approach develops a classification, or typology, of SDs in terms of net migration
and population change. The actual size of the relationship between net migration and
population change has no upper limit. However, a value greater than 100 percent, be it
positive or negative, indicates that net migration is greater than population change. A value
of 200 percent indicates that net migration is twice the size of population change, while a
value of 250 percent indicates net migration to be 2.5 times the size of population change. In
contrast, a value of 50 percent would mean that net migration was half the size of population
change.
The impact of internal migration on population change is assessed for variables
related to the total population, economic criteria, human capital measures and recent
migrants. In particular, net migration is assessed as a percentage of total population change
for the following variables:





3.5.1
Total population (ignoring gender)
Labour force, defined as employed, unemployed and not in the labour force
Occupation, using categories of Professional and Managers, Technical and Trades and
Operators, drivers and labourers
Education, using persons with a bachelor degree or higher
Migrants, defined as recent and long term
Net migration and population change – total population
For statistical divisions where net migration gains are associated with total population
gains, a number of points can be made:




Contiguity between SDs in this classification is substantial. There is a single coastal
belt of SDs in this group which extends from Northern (Mackay) in Queensland to
Barwon in Victoria. From Barwon, the belt extends inland into Victoria through the
Central Highlands and the Loddon and Goulburn regions, and adjoins the extensive
Murray region. In Tasmania, every SDs is represented, while in South Australia two
extensive SDs – Outer Adelaide and Yorke and Lower North mean that from
Kangaroo Island, anticlockwise around the Adelaide SD to the south west corner of
Yorke Peninsula is a region where net migration gain is accompanied by total
population change. In Western Australia, SDs in this classification are confined to the
south west corner of the state.
These SDs contain 95.3 percent of all net migration gain by SDs in the 2001-2006
period.
In Mid-North Coast and Richmond-Tweed, net migration was greater than total
population change, while in Outer Adelaide, Moreton, Mackay, Wide Bay-Burnett
and Northern-Qld, net migration ranged from 53.4 percent to 91.7 percent of total
population change.
There were a further 13 SDs where the relationship between net migration and total
population change was between 25 and 50 percent.
31
There were only three SDs where net migration gain was matched by total population
loss. These three SDs act to make the geography of net migration gain even tighter, so that
the region of net migration gain extends uninterrupted from Cape York Peninsula to
Tasmania, including all of Victoria east of, and including, the region defined by Barwon,
Central Highlands and Loddon statistical divisions.
Where net migration loss and total population gain occurs, it is clear that international
migration and/or natural increase is offsetting population loss through internal migration.
Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Canberra are in this classification, as well as regional SDs
such as Murrumbidgee, Central West-NSW, Eyre in South Australia and Mallee in Victoria.
For statistical divisions in the remaining classification – net migration loss and total
population loss – these are the real source SDs for internal migration in Australia. They are
the regions which are unable, presently, to maintain population levels.
3.5.2
Net migration and population change – employed population
The working population comprises persons working either full time or part time.
Based on the classification of SDs that results from the analysis, a number of points can be
made:

The 18 SDs in which there was net migration gain and total population gain during
the five years to 2006 is less than the 26 SDs in this classification for the total
population. Net migration in these SDs represented 95.5 percent of all net migration
gain throughout the country. The spatial distribution of these SDs is tighter than that
for the total population, and is essentially coastal with an eastern seaboard emphasis.
In no SDs was net migration greater than total population change, indicating that
international migration and local persons entering the workforce are playing important
roles in population change. Four of the capital city SDs – Canberra, Brisbane, Hobart
and Perth – are in this classification.

SDs where net migration loss occurred with total population gain included Sydney,
Adelaide and Melbourne. In these cities it seems that while employed persons are
leaving the capitals, in substantial numbers in the case of Sydney, their loss is offset
by gains from other sources, particularly from overseas.

There were 20 SDs where net migration loss and total population loss occurred,
representing 28.4 percent of the total net migration loss occurring in Australian SDs.
These are the sources for internal migration by employed persons, and they are largely
confined to the pastoral and agricultural areas of the nation, which have been subject
to ongoing restructuring for more than four decades.
3.5.3
Net migration and population change – unemployed population
The analysis for this group produces an essentially two fold classification, where SDs
are either defined as net migration gain and total population loss or net migration loss and
total population loss. In terms of the first group, three main points can be made:

The impact of net migration on total population change is relatively small.

These SDs are “sink” SDs for internal migration of unemployed persons.

These “sinks” define four main regions in Australia which have received the bulk of
unemployed internal migrants 2001 and 2006. These are: south eastern Queenslandnorthern NSW border region, the contiguous Loddon, Central Highlands, Barwon,
Melbourne, Gippsland and East Gippsland SDs in Victoria, the northern part of
32
Tasmania and the Adelaide, Outer Adelaide and Yorke and Lower North statistical
divisions in South Australia.
For the second classification, the main point is that the SDs in this classification
represent “source” statistical divisions, which are repelling unemployed persons due to a
shortage of relevant jobs in the SDs.
3.5.4
Net migration and population change – NILF population
In an internal migration context, persons not in the labour force are equated with
retired persons, and, their patterns can indicate the impact of retirement on internal migration.
Twenty SDs fall into the net migration gain and total population gain classification.
Significantly, no capital cities are in this group. There are ten SDs where the relationship is
substantial, and the geography of these SDs, along with the remainder in the classification,
can be used to define the “retirement” belt, or “hot spots”, in Australia which is highly
concentrated in Victoria, in coastal and interior SDs due to “sea change” and “tree change”
processes, principally in coastal SDs in New South Wales, and in south east Queensland and
South Australia.
Spatially, the eight SDs in the net migration gain and total population loss
classification link the retirement pockets described above, to create a more or less contiguous
belt from Wide Bay-Burnett in Queensland south along the coast to southern NSW and
hooking up with eastern and central Victoria. SDs in this classification also generate outlier
“retirement” areas in northern Queensland, and complete the definition of the whole of
Tasmania being a retirement location. In the Moreton SD, which comprises the 2006 SDs of
Sunshine Coast, West Moreton and Gold Coast, the effect of net migration was to reduce
substantially total population decline. Other SDs where net migration gain had a significant
impact on the extent of total population loss were South Eastern-NSW, Greater Hobart and
Richmond-Tweed.
3.5.5
Net migration and population change – professional and managerial population
This group represents the mobility of a highly educated and highly skilled group. Its
mobility produces a classification in which SDs are evenly split between net migration gain
and total population gain, and net migration loss and total population gain.
With respect to the first classification, these are statistical divisions where professions
and managers can either work and/or live. Many SDs in this classification can be defined as
dormitory suburbs. The SDs in this classification are spread relatively evenly between the
states, and in them net migration has aided the extent of total population change.
The other main classification is where net migration loss is accompanied by total
population gain. In these SDs, although there has been growth in the total population of
professionals and managers, net migration losses have acted to hold back that growth. The
classification defines “source” SDs in terms of the mobility of professionals and managers.
3.5.6
Net migration and population change – technical and trades occupations
The largest classification for this group involves SDs experiencing net migration loss .
These “source” SDs are geographically widespread, and funnel internal migrants into a tight
distribution of 19 statistical divisions where net migration gains and total population gain
occurs. The geographic concentration of these latter “sink” SDs is highly concentrated in
Queensland and characterised extensive resource development. The influence of mining
development is also evident in Hunter, South Eastern-NSW, South West-WA and Pilbara,
while the possible influence of infrastructure and housing expansion in retirement regions
might be the reason for net migration gains in Barwon, Loddon, and Outer Adelaide SDs.
33
3.5.7
Net migration and population change – operators, drivers and labourer
occupations
This group represents the unskilled occupations. The group has been subject to
pressures associated with restructuring, and accompanying capitalisation, over a long period.
There were 18 statistical divisions in which net migration gain was associated with total
population gain, and in which net migration had a positive effect on population change. In
these SDs, internal mobility is related to resource development, in some cases to agricultural
expansion, and to urban infrastructure activity in some capital cities and regions experiencing
population growth.
The largest classification was for net migration loss accompanied by total population
gain. In these SDs, the effect of net migration has been to hold back total population growth
in the number of persons employed as operators, drivers or labourers.
3.5.8
Net migration and population change – persons with a bachelor degree or higher
This group represents persons with high levels of educational attainment. The
mobility of this group basically generates a twofold classification of SDs. There are 29
statistical divisions in which net migration gain is coupled with total population gain of
persons with a bachelor degree or higher, and 21 SDs where net migration loss was
associated with total population gain.
3.5.9
Net migration and population change – recently arrived migrants
This internal mobility group is comprised of international migrants who arrived in
Australia after 1996. This group breaks down into a two way classification of statistical
divisions in which net migration gain is associated with total population gain, and those
where there is net migration loss linked with total population gain.
There are 26 SDs in the first group, which includes Canberra, Brisbane, Melbourne
and Perth, indicating that these cities offer attractions to recent migrants not present in the
other capitals. The second classification is the larger of the two, with 31 SDs. In these SDs,
it is clear from the data that there is a high turnover of recent migrants, representing a process
where recent migrants arrive afresh to take advantage of the incentives offered by these areas,
but soon are confronted with factors that cause them to rethink their decision and move away
from the area. While this process would seem to be common in many of the more remote,
pastoral and agricultural SDs, it is also the case in Sydney, Hobart, Darwin and Adelaide.
3.5.10 Net migration and population change – longer term migrants
This mobility group is defined as international migrants who arrived in Australia
before 1997. The group generates a basically two fold classification where net migration
gain is associated with total population loss and where net migration loss is linked with total
population decline. There are 34 SDs in the first classification, and in these the impact of net
migration has been to soften the extent of total population decline, as well as defining “sink”
SDs for the group. In the other classification, 17 SDs are represented, including Darwin,
Sydney, Adelaide, Canberra, Perth and Melbourne – six of the eight capital city statistical
divisions.
3.5.11 Net migration and population change, 2001-2006: Summary
This section has sought to show the relationship between net migration for groups and
its relationship to total population change in the groups. The process has allocated SDs into
one of four possible classes. Not all SDs fall into the same classification for each of the
internal mobility groups assessed. Table 3.2 provides a classification summary for each of
34
the mobility groups, and can indicate how different aspects of the internal migration process
affect different mobility groups, as well as showing how different group’s net migration
impacts on population change in each of the statistical divisions.
Overall, the approach has been a means by which “real winners” and “real losers”
SDs, in terms of population change, can be identified. Those SDs which have experienced
net migration gain and total population gain during the period are very much “hot spots” for
population growth and “sinks” for internal migration. Based on information in Table 3.2 the
“hotspot”, or “sinks” SDs during the 2001-2006 period, and the dominant “sources”, are
shown in Table 3.3.
Those statistical divisions which have experience net migration loss along with total
population loss are areas where total population decline is a cause for concern. The issue in
the case of these SDs is not so much understanding the cause of the population drain, but
attempting to halt the decline with policies designed to both retain population in, and attract
population to, these SDs and regions. A number of these current “source” regions may
indeed be areas which attract the attention of policy makers interested in developing a
sustainable population for Australia.
35
Table 3.2: Comparing Net Migration and Population Change by Various Mobility
Groups, Statistical Divisions, 2001-2006
Statistical Divisio ns
Sydney
M id-No rth Co ast
Hunter
So uth Eastern - NSW
Richmo nd-Tweed
Illawarra
Central West - NSW
M urray
Far West
No rthern - NSW
No rth Western
M urrumbidgee
M elbo urne
Gippsland
Lo ddo n
Go ulburn
Central Highlands
East Gippsland
B arwo n
Western District
Ovens-M urray
Wimmera
M allee
B risbane
Wide B ay-B urnett
Far No rth
Darling Do wns
No rthern - Qld
M ackay
Fitzro y
Central West - Qld
So uth West - Qld
No rth West
M o reto n
A delaide
Outer A delaide
Yo rke and Lo wer No rth
M urray Lands
Eyre
So uth East
No rthern - SA
P erth
So uth West - WA
Lo wer Great So uthern
M idlands
Upper Great So uthern
Central
Kimberley
So uth Eastern - WA
P ilbara
Greater Ho bart
No rthern - Tas
M ersey-Lyell
So uthern
Canberra
A ustralian Capital Territo ry - B al
Darwin
No rthern Territo ry - B al
To tal
po pulatio n
No t in
Labo ur
fo rce
Un
emplo yed
Wo rking
(FT and
P T)
2
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
4
4
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
2
1
1
4
2
2
4
1
1
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
2
4
4
4
2
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
4
3
4
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
2
3
1
3
1
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
1
1
2
4
2
4
4
1
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
3
1
1
1
2
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
2
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
2
1
1
3
1
2
4
2
4
4
4
4
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
4
4
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
2
1
2
4
2
4
4
1
1
2
4
4
4
3
4
3
1
2
2
1
1
4
3
4
Le ge nd
1. Net migratio n gain and to tal po pulatio n gain
2. Net migratio n lo ss and to tal po pulatio n gain
3. Net migratio n gain and to tal po pulatio n lo ss
4. Net migratio n lo ss and to tal po pulatio n lo ss
P ro fessio nals Technical Operato rs,
and M anagers and Trades drivers and
labo urers
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
3
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
4
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
4
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
4
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
3
1
2
1
2
2
2
4
2
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
4
M igrants
B achelo r
degree and who arrived
befo re 1997
higher
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
4
2
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
4
4
3
1
2
1
1
1
4
2
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
1
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
M igrants
who arrived
after 1996
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
4
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
36
Table 3.3: Dominant “sinks” and “sources, statistical divisions, 2001-2006
Dominant "sinks"
Wide Bay-Burnett
Outer Adelaide
South West - WA
Hunter
Loddon
Barwon
Mackay
Brisbane
Moreton
Southern
Far North
Mid-North Coast
Richmond-Tweed
East Gippsland
Yorke and Lower North
Fitzroy
Perth
Goulburn
South Eastern - NSW
Murray
Northern - Qld
Greater Hobart
Mersey-Lyell
Dominant "sources"
Central West - Qld
North West
Northern Territory - Bal
South West - Qld
Kimberley
Australian Capital Territory North Western
Central
South Eastern - WA
37
CHAPTER 4.
4.1
INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION AND ITS IMPACT
ON POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
INTRODUCTION
In the post war period net international migration has made a significant contribution
to Australia’s population growth. Accordingly, where immigrants settle has important
national and regional influences on population distribution and needs to be considered in
concert with net internal migration and natural increase to examine the dynamics of regional
population growth.
4.2
INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION AND ITS EFFECTS ON POPULATION
DISTRIBUTION
Internal migration data based on previous residence does not detect the impact on
population redistribution of international migrants arriving between 2001 and 2006. And yet,
at the 2006 census, nearly 820,000 international migrants had arrived in Australia since 2001.
The probability that these migrants engaged in one or more residential moves within
Australia between their arrival and the 2006 census is high, but none of these moves were
captured by the 2006 census internal migration data. In relation to migrants arriving after
2001, a number of points can be made:

In 2006, 53.2 percent of them lived in Sydney and Melbourne. These two capitals
experienced the greatest levels of net internal migration loss between 2001 and 2006.
These migrants who arrived in Sydney and Melbourne after 2001 not only
counterbalanced their net internal migration loss, but also made a significant
contribution to their population growth.

Their proportions in Brisbane and Perth in 2006 were 11.1 and 10.7 percent
respectively.

82.8 percent of them resided in the capital cities in 2006. Beyond the capitals
concentrations of one percent or greater occurred in just three SDs – Gold Coast,
Sunshine Coast and Hunter – all coastal SDs close to major metropolitan areas.

The peri-urban statistical divisions adjoining major cities, such as Outer Adelaide,
Barwon and South West-WA had smaller but significant gains of recent migrants

There were sizeable recent immigrant populations in some tourist coastal localities
and inland mining industry areas.
The impact of these levels of international migration on population distribution in
Australia is offset by people who left Australia after 2001 and who had an international
address as their usual residence in 2006. The census cannot measure this offset to enable a
net value for the impact of international migration on the size, structure and distribution of
population throughout Australia. However, because Australia has experienced net overseas
migration gains each year during the current decade, clearly international migration results in
net gain. In many areas, this net gain has occurred against significant net internal migration
losses between 2001 and 2006, and nowhere is this more the case than in Sydney and
38
Melbourne. Females comprised 50.9 percent of arrivals between 2002-06, and the 24-44
years age group was the largest, nearly twice the size of the younger 15-24 years age group.
4.3
DISTRIBUTION OF AUSTRALIA-BORN
POPULATIONS IN AUSTRALIA, 2006
4.3.1
Introduction
AND
OVERSEAS-BORN
The dominant trend over the post war period has been an increasing concentration of
population in urban areas. However, the pattern has been most marked among the migrant
population. In 1947 12.5 percent of people living in Australia’s major cities was overseasborn, by 2006 it was 30 percent. The proportion of immigrants living in major cities
increased from 61.8 to 82.8 percent in 2006 while for the Australia-born it grew from 49.7 to
61 percent. In 1947, 31.8 percent of Australians lived in rural areas but only 13.9 percent in
2006 while for the overseas-born the population fell from 24.7 to six percent.
This strong pattern of increasing urbanisation of the overseas-born population was a
function of most new arrivals settling in Australia’s capital cities. The pattern was especially
evident for recently arrived migrants, and more so for those from mainly non English
speaking countries. There were increases in the percentages of new arrivals settling in capital
cities with each post war census until the 2006 enumeration. While 83.9 percent of migrants
settled in these cities, the proportion fell for the first time during the post war period. A
similar tendency to some decentralisation of migrant settlement away from major centres has
also been noted in Europe and North America. There are then two long established elements
in Australian post war immigrant settlement patterns. Firstly, immigrants from MES
countries, especially New Zealand and the United Kingdom, are more similar to the
Australia-born in their settlement patterns than is the case for those from MNES countries.
Secondly, both groups, especially the MES group, show a strong tendency, with time, for
their settlement patterns to converge toward those of the Australia-born.
4.3.2
Changing Distribution between States and Territories
A spatial shift has occurred in Australia’s post war population away from the south
eastern states to the northern and western parts of the country. This has been a function of
structural change in the manufacturing sector especially, and resource development
particularly in Queensland and Western Australia. While much of the distributional shift has
been due to interstate population movements, immigrants have shown a propensity to settle in
particular states, notably New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. More recently,
the proportions of recent migrants residing in NSW has declined, while levels in Victoria,
Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia have increased. There are wide
differences between the states in the significance of immigrant settlement and this is
undergoing substantial change.
4.3.3
Overseas-Born in Urban Areas
Not only have post war migrants tended to settle in Australia’s larger urban areas but
also they have concentrated especially in Sydney and Melbourne. Sydney and Melbourne’s
share of the nation’s overseas-born population was 53.1 percent in 2006, compared with 34.1
percent for Australian born. Although Sydney remains the most significant centre of
immigrant settlement in Australia, there is clear evidence of a shift in trends, occasioned by a
dispersal away from Sydney towards the other capitals, as well as increased settlement
beyond capital cities. There are significant variations between different birthplace groups in
their propensity to settle in major cities, with higher concentrations among groups from non
English speaking countries compared with those from English speaking backgrounds.
39
The population composition of Australian cities has been influenced by a series of
waves, each characterised by a different mix of birthplace groups, as Australia’s immigration
policy and the national and global economic, political and demographic situation has
changed. Accordingly there has been a substantial shift in the ethnic structure, and diversity,
of Australian cities with those changes.
4.3.4
Overseas-Born in Non-Metropolitan Areas
One longstanding feature of migrant settlement in non-metropolitan Australia has
been the high degree of spatial concentration. Outside the capitals, immigrants tended to
settle in Intensive agricultural and horticultural areas, major provincial centres, mining and
industrial centres and some fishing communities. They avoided the dry farming, extensive
agricultural areas of the Australian wheat-sheep belt, so that the non-metropolitan overseasborn population has been even more concentrated than those settling in major cities.
There is evidence of a new pattern of immigrant settlement in regional Australia, with
some settlement occurring in areas previously eschewed by immigrants, especially by those
from non English speaking backgrounds. Their settlement has partly been a response to
severe labour shortages and the State Specific Regional Migration (SSRM) scheme.
4.3.5
The Role of Policy
During the post war period, Australian immigration policy has been overwhelmingly
concerned with shaping the scale and composition of the immigration intake. It was not until
the mid 1990s that the Australian government considered attempting to shape where
immigrants settle on a large scale, when the sustainability of rural and regional communities
became an important national issue. Similarly, states which were lagging economically
pressed for immigration to assist their economic development. The State Specific and
Regional Migration Scheme (SSRM) was initiated in May 1996 to attract immigrants to areas
which receiving small intakes. At no time since Federation have state governments been
more heavily involved in the immigration policy and operations.
4.3.6
The Distribution of the Overseas-Born
In Sydney and Melbourne, the concentrations of overseas-born are much higher than
the concentrations of Australia-born, while in Perth and Adelaide overseas born
concentrations are slightly higher than for the Australia-born group. In Brisbane and the
remaining capital cities, the proportion of Australia-born is slightly greater than the
proportion of overseas-born. Spatially, the overseas born have shown a long term tendency
for capital city, or near capital city, locations, compared with the Australian born tendency
for location along the entire “verandah” of the east coast seaboard. In New South Wales,
Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, typically 85 percent of overseas-born reside
in the capital city statistical division. The exceptions are Queensland and Tasmania.
4.3.7
Distribution of Overseas-Born by Length of Time in Australia
The overseas-born population can be divided into two large groups, one comprising
recent migrants who arrived after 1996, and another longer term group who arrived before
1997. Recent migrants show a greater tendency for large city living than their longer term
counterparts. Some 56.5 percent of migrants who arrived in Australia after 1996 were living
in Sydney and Melbourne in 2006, compared with 52.2 percent of those who had been in
Australia since before 1997. There are also differences in the spatial distribution of recent
migrants compared with longer term migrants, and there are discernible differences in
concentrations of recent migrants who arrived between 1997 and 2001, and those who arrived
between 2002 and 2006.
40
4.3.8
Distribution of Overseas-Born by Birthplace
A further distinction between migrants and their spatial distribution can be made on
the basis of birthplace. There are nearly one million more MNESC migrants in Australia than
MESC migrants, while the proportion of MNESC migrants resident in Sydney and
Melbourne is roughly double the proportion of MESC migrants in each city. The proportion
of MNESC migrants in Canberra is greater than MESC migrants, while in Darwin each group
has the same proportion. In the remaining capitals, the proportion of MNESC migrants is
lower than the proportion of MESC migrants.
Migrants from mainly English speaking countries have a spatial distribution that is
more similar to that of the Australia-born population, and more geographical widespread than
the distribution of Overseas-born persons. In the case of migrants from mainly non-English
speaking countries, their geography is much more confined than that displayed by the
migrants from mainly English speaking countries and even more restricted spatially than the
distribution displayed by the overseas-born group. It demonstrates very clearly the role of
language in any group’s success at expanding their presence. As ability in English improves,
so more opportunities to extend their living space arise, through improved employment
opportunities, purchasing power and housing opportunities.
4.4
TEMPORARY MIGRATION
One of the most profound changes in Australia’s immigration system since the mid
1990s has been an increase in non-permanent migration. At June 2008 there were 809,628
persons temporarily present in Australia and until the onset of the Global Financial Crisis the
numbers were increasing by 15 percent per year. Clearly, where these groups go when they
arrive in Australia has an impact on population distribution. As not all are detected in the
census it is important to understand their spatial distribution.
One of the major categories of temporary migrants are Long Stay Temporary
Business Entrants (Visa Category 457) who numbered a record 110,570 in 2007-08. They
are more concentrated in Australia’s major cities than are permanent migrants. Some 51
percent of all 457s coming in 2001-03 went to Sydney.
The largest category of temporary residents is overseas students who numbered
317,897 in 2008. This group is concentrated in the major mainland cities. There are more
students in Melbourne than in Sydney which is different from the pattern for permanent
settlers and 457s. One of the categories of temporary migration which has increased in scale
over the last decade and which has impinged on non-metropolitan Australia is Working
Holiday Makers (WHM). They are mainly involved in the hospitality, horticultural and rural
industries and many of the jobs are located outside of Australia’s major cities. In 2008-09
there were 187,696 WHM visas granted, an increase of 21.8 percent on the previous year and
a doubling since 2003-04. Hence they have become an important element in the population
of particular communities on a seasonal basis.
4.5
CONCLUSION
There is a stability in Australia’s population distribution, the major lineaments of
which have changed little over the last century. However, it is a deceptive stability since
there is a great deal of dynamism and international migration is an important element of this
dynamism. International migration has been of crucial significance in the urbanisation of
Australia and in dramatically changing the composition of Australia’s urban populations.
Immigration is the key demographic process in the development of Australia’s major cities,
especially the ‘Gateway City’ of Sydney. It is not only the major demographic engine of
growth, it also has an important role in economic and social change.
41
This chapter has also identified a significant, albeit small, shift in the settlement
patterns of immigrants in recent years. Immigration is playing an increasingly significant
role in regional and state development in Australia, by being explicitly factored into
economic planning at state, regional and local levels. A main aim of the chapter has been to
show the influence of international migration on net migration levels, and to illustrate that
international migration had a substantial offsetting impact on the large net migration losses
Sydney and Melbourne experienced between 2001 and 2006. A second task for the chapter
has been to show how migrants are distributed geographically throughout the country. There
has been a slight shift temporally in the tendency for migrants to choose capital city locations,
although for recent migrants and those from mainly non-English speaking countries, there is
strong evidence presented to suggest that the capital cities statistical divisions, and to a lesser
extent some adjacent SDs, remain the preferred locations for migrants.
42
CHAPTER 5.
5.1
INTERNAL MIGRATION OF RECENT MIGRANTS
INTRODUCTION
In considering the changing spatial distribution of the Australian population and
differences between regions in the rates of population growth a consideration of the
behaviour of recent immigrants is of the utmost significance. Between 2001 and 2006 some
44,000 recent migrants moved residence between the 60 Australian statistical divisions. This
is in contrast to the 1.69 million persons, or 8.5 percent of Australia’s 2006 total population,
who moved between 2001 and 2006. However, it must be stressed that this 44,000 recent
migrants only includes immigrants who arrived in Australia between 1997 and 2001 because
all those who arrived after 2001 are not included in the census internal migration data. These
moves by recent migrants therefore represent 9.3 percent of all migrants arriving in Australia
between 1997 and 2001. As with the analysis of mobility for the total population, the net
migration calculation is the principal indicator of population mobility. Analysis of a number
of subgroups has not been undertaken because their numbers were considered too small.
5.2
INTERNAL MIGRATION OF RECENT MIGRANTS IN AUSTRALIA,
2001-06
5.2.1
Total Internal Migration between Statistical Divisions
The main internal migration characteristics of recent migrants are shown in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Internal migration in Australia, recent migrants, total population, 2001-2006
Migration group
Scale of movement
Comments/Implications
Total population
44,000 movers between 2001 and 2006, with 69.7%
interstate.
Interstate mobility is a feature of recent
migrants’ mobility, compared with total
population. Why? Possibly dissatisfied with
original location. Move to find work, be
closer to other similar people. This is area for
further research to explore the implications.
Sydney had biggest losses (4,600).
Brisbane had largest gains (2,200), but gains also in
Melbourne, Canberra and Perth.
Main sinks: Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Wide BayBurnett, South West-WA, Richmond-Tweed
Eastern seaboard accounts for most gain
For Sydney it would appear from the analysis that after a period of initial settlement
in Sydney, international migrants begin to conform to the pattern of longer term Australian
residents of leaving Sydney for other parts of Australia. Sydney has for an extended period
experienced substantial net internal migration losses while at the same time recording net
international migration gains. The apparently negative relationship between substantial net
gains from international migration and net losses from internal migration in Sydney has been
noted since 1972.
Spatially, the dominance of the eastern seaboard in recording net migration gains of
recent migrants, excluding Sydney, is clearly evident. So too are regions in New South
Wales bounded by the River Murray, and in the central parts of Victoria. In South Australia,
areas of net migration gain are adjacent to the Adelaide SD, while in Western Australia net
gains are confined to the south west corner of the state. The areas of greatest net migration
loss are in the more remote regions of the country, where much of Australia’s resource
43
development is occurring. This might suggest a pattern of recently arrived migrants residing
in these remote areas and after a few years moving elsewhere in Australia.
Recent migrants have a greater propensity to move interstate than the total population.
Their mobility between states shows some interesting trends:

Most from NSW went to adjacent Queensland or Victoria. 12 percent went to WA.

Most who left Victoria went to NSW or to Queensland. 12.8 percent went to WA.

Of those who left Queensland, more went to NSW, the adjacent state, than went to
Victoria. 15.2 percent leaving Queensland went to Western Australia.

Victoria and New South Wales attracted equal numbers of recent migrants from South
Australia. Slightly fewer went to Queensland, and only ten percent went to WA.

Those who left WA were evenly split between NSW, Victoria and Queensland. 86.4
percent of recent migrants who left WA went to these three states.

Most recent migrants who left Tasmania went to Victoria, with equal numbers going
to NSW and Queensland.

For the Northern Territory, the majority of recent migrants who left went to
Queensland and Western Australia. 16 percent went to New South Wales

Of the 1,089 recent migrants who left the ACT, most went to NSW and Victoria, the
adjacent states. 17.9 percent went to Queensland.
The net migration figures are quite small in comparison to the total volume of
movement in and out of states. Net migration is only the ‘tip of the iceberg’ of a more
complex pattern of flow, and in all cases there are substantial counter flows of inter statistical
division migration.
5.2.2
Internal Migration of Recent Migrants, Gender
Table 5.2 shows the main characteristics of recent migrants’ internal migration by
gender.
Table 5.2: Internal migration in Australia, recent migrants, gender, 2001-2006
Migration group
Scale of movement
Comments/Implications
Male/Female
21,800 males and 22,400 females moved. 65.4% males,
and 64% females, moved interstate.
Both males and females have similar spatial
distribution to that of total recent migrant
distribution.
Sydney has greatest losses for both sexes.
Largest gains in Brisbane, smaller gains in Melbourne,
Canberra and Perth for both sexes.
Main sinks: (Males) Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Wide
Bay-Burnett, Richmond-Tweed, South West-WA;
(Females) Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Wide BayBurnett, South West-WA, Mid-North Coast
44
5.2.3
Internal Migration of Recent Migrants Aged 25-44 Years, 2001-06
Recent migrants aged 25-44 years are the largest group numerically, and the prime
working age group, and its summary mobility characteristics are presented in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3: Internal migration in Australia, recent migrants, 25-44 years, 2001-2006
Migration group
Scale of movement
Comments/Implications
25-44 years
24,000 movers, 68.2% interstate. Only Sydney (2,800)
and Adelaide (10) had losses.
Largest mobility group. Prime working age.
Proportion of interstate movers much greater
than for total population – 68% compared with
50%.
Main sinks: Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, South WestWA, Richmond-Tweed, Hunter
Mobility most likely
employment opportunities.
5.2.4
influenced
by
Internal Migration of Recent Migrants and Language Proficiency, 2001-06
Most recent migrants speak English well or very well. Sydney’s net loss was 1,164,
considerably higher than the losses reported in Darwin, Hobart and Adelaide. Net gains were
highest in Brisbane (953), Melbourne (804) and Canberra (283). The top ten sink SDs were
dominated by the Gold Coast and Richmond-Tweed. As with other variables in this
discussion, the largest net migration losses occurred in Illawarra, Northern-SA, Goulburn and
Pilbara. Spatially, the data indicate a flight from the interior to the more attractive coastal
areas and some regional locations.
5.3
INTERNAL MIGRATION
CAPITAL, 2001-06
OF
RECENT
MIGRANTS
AND
5.3.1
Internal Migration of Recent Migrants and Level of Education, 2001-06
HUMAN
The main mobility characteristics of recent migrants with a bachelor degree or higher,
and those with Year 12 education as their highest level of educational attainment are shown
in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4: Internal migration in Australia, recent migrants, education level, 2001-2006
Migration group
Scale of movement
Comments/Implications
Bachelor degree
or higher
13,800 movers, 70.4% interstate.
Spatially, group seems to be moving from the
interior SDs towards more coastal locations.
All capitals experienced losses except Brisbane and
Canberra.
Main sinks: Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, South EasternNSW, Richmond-Tweed, Barwon.
Year 12 or less
37,000 movers, of which 64.8% were interstate. Sydney
lost 3,700. Gains in Brisbane, Melbourne and Canberra.
Main sinks: Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Wide BayBurnett, South West-WA, Richmond-Tweed.
Sydney clearly too expensive for this group.
45
5.3.2
Internal Migration of Recent Migrants and Occupation, 2001-06
Mobility patterns for professionals and managers only are assessed here because
numbers in the other occupational groupings were too small. Their main mobility
characteristics are presented in Table 5.5.
Table 5.5: Internal migration in Australia, recent migrants, occupation, 2001-2006
Migration group
Scale of movement
Comments/Implications
Professionals and
Managers
11,500 movers – 68.5% interstate. Losses in Sydney
(900) and Melbourne (300). Largest gain in Brisbane
(430).
Spatially concentrated along eastern seaboard,
from Cape York to South Australia/Victoria
border region, as well as around Adelaide and
Perth and in central and north-west Tasmania.
Main sinks: Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, RichmondTweed, South Eastern-NSW, South West-WA, MidNorth Coast.
5.3.3
Mobility and Labour Force Status, 2001-06
This section considers the mobility of recent migrants employed full time and part
time. Table 5.6 shows the main features of their internal migration patterns.
Table 5.6: Internal migration in Australia, recent migrants, labour force, 2001-2006
Migration group
Scale of movement
Comments/Implications
Employed
time
10,000 movers, 66.7% interstate. Main losses from
Sydney, Adelaide and Melbourne. Largest gains in
Brisbane and Canberra.
Mobility strongly influenced by resource
development in a number of states. Other
economic activity in Brisbane, Gold Coast and
Sunshine Coast also impacting on their
mobility pattern.
full
Main sinks: Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Northern-Qld,
South West-WA, South Eastern-NSW.
Employed
time
part
6,000 movers, 62.1% interstate. Four of the capitals had
losses – largest in Sydney.
Gains in Brisbane,
Melbourne and Canberra.
Main sinks: Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, South WestWA, Wide Bay-Burnett, Richmond-Tweed.
5.4
Similar distribution to employed full time.
Full time and part time employment levels
often complemented in a number of regions.
This is not, however, always the case,
especially in remote areas.
SUMMARY
A number of significant observations developed in the discussion are worth
recapitulating:

Interstate mobility was dominant among recent migrants, in direct contrast to patterns
exhibited by the total population. Generally, the proportion of interstate movers was
60 percent or higher. This may suggests that the initial state of location is not suitable
for the needs of recent migrants. Understanding the reasons for this internal mobility
characteristic could result in considerable savings and efficiencies not only for the
movers but also for government agencies.

Sydney statistical division consistently experienced substantial net migration losses,
regardless of mover characteristics, which were not matched by the other capitals.

Among recent migrants, Melbourne was consistently favoured over Sydney. Often
positive net gains for Melbourne contrasted with net losses for Sydney, rather than
smaller net losses for Melbourne compared with Sydney. Clearly, Melbourne
46
possesses attributes not present in Sydney. Understanding the nature of this attraction
may provide policy directions which could be used in Sydney to halt, if not reverse
the current internal mobility tendencies among recent migrants.

Typically, Brisbane recorded the highest net migration gains, not just among the
capital city SDs, but within the country, while Illawarra, Northern-SA and South
Eastern-WA generated consistently high net losses in a range of variables.

The most cited statistical divisions with low net migration levels in association with
relatively high turnovers were Darling Downs, Goulburn, Northern-Tas,
Murrumbidgee, Barwon, Central West-NSW, Gippsland, Illawarra, Lower Great
Southern, Pilbara, Richmond-Tweed and South Eastern-NSW.
These SDs
consistently attracted large numbers of arrivals and departures, and therefore contain a
balance of positive and negative features in terms of attracting and keeping recent
migrants. A better understanding of the processes that underlie these observations is
an avenue for further enquiry, and may generate policy initiatives which help these
areas retain the recent migrants they attract.
47
CHAPTER 6.
6.1
INTERNAL MIGRATION OVER 2005-06
INTRODUCTION
Census data enables internal migration between 2005-2006 to be analysed. There are
several advantages associated with any analysis for this shorter period of time: This derives
especially from:

The five year data only detects a single move between 2001 and 2006, but many
people moved more than once over those years. Therefore, five year mobility
numbers are not simply five times the one year level due to multiple moves. Single
year mobility therefore provides some additional insights.

The single year migration data includes immigrants who were overseas in 2001 but
who came to Australia between 2001 and 2005. Hence these data give more
understanding of the internal migration of more recently arrived immigrants than is
possible from the five year data.
6.2
COMPARING FIVE YEAR AND ONE YEAR INTERNAL MIGRATION
There is an element of ‘hidden’ mobility in the 2001-2006 data. By comparing
mobility data based on 2005 residence with that for 2001 residence, a measure of ‘hidden’
mobility is possible. In the main Report, a comparison of the two data sets is made for total
population, age and sex. The main points from that analysis are:
6.3

For the total population, the 2001-06 data has captured 56.6 percent of ‘actual’
mobility. There is, therefore, significant “hidden” mobility in the 2001-2006 data.
Despite this the patterns of net mobility produced by the two data sets is very similar.

For the younger age groups, the extent of actual mobility captured in the 2001-06 data
is low – significantly below 50 percent. This illustrates the high levels of mobility
attributed to the younger age groups.

Among older movers, the number of moves captured in the 2001-06 data moves
closer to those measured in the 2005-06 data. This is more the case for movers aged
65 years and over than it is for the 45-64 years age group. The same relationship
exists between the 45-64 year group and the younger 25-44 year group.

The situation for males is similar to that for females.

Notwithstanding any of the points above, the patterns of net mobility generated from
each of the data sets have a high level of similarity.
FIVE YEAR AND ONE YEAR POPULATION CHANGE
In the main Report, details of estimated resident population change for each statistical
division between 2001-2006, 2001-2005 and 2005-2006 have been presented, to provide a
comparative benchmark against which to gauge the impact of net migration in any statistical
division. These estimated resident population data allow an indication of whether, for
example, high net migration is associated with high population growth, or whether net
migration has been high but population growth has been low, stagnant or negative.
Generally, however, there appears to be a positive relationship between statistical divisions
with high percentage population gain between 2001 and 2006, and those which have
experienced high net migration gains. For instance, sea change and tree change regions,
48
which owe their status to internal migration, have experienced large percentage changes in
population between 2001 and 2006.
6.4
INTERNAL MIGRATION BETWEEN 2005-06
The research for this Report involved the preparation of tables for internal migration
during the 2005-2006 period. Many produced patterns similar to those described for the five
year migration data. These tables, and their associated discussion, have been presented as an
Attachment to the main Report, and selected aspects of the 2005-2006 data analysis have
been incorporated into the discussion for the 2001-2006 period in Chapter 2.
6.5
ONE YEAR MIGRATION OF RECENT MIGRANTS
6.5.1
Introduction
The one year internal migration data shows that recent migrants display high levels of
mobility. Moreover, it succinctly demonstrates that migrants are most mobile during their
initial months and years in Australia as they adjust to life in a new country.
6.5.2
Comparing One Year and Five Year Internal Migration among Recent Migrants
There is an element of ‘hidden’ mobility in the data relating to any respondent’s 2001
residence. In the main Report, a comparison of the 2001-2006 and 2005-2006 data sets is
made for recent migrants’ total population, age and sex. The main points from that analysis
are:

For the total population of recent migrants, the 2001-06 data has captured just 28.2
percent of ‘actual’ mobility. This is a much lower proportion than recorded for the
total population. It suggests that recent migrants are much more residentially mobile
than the wider community, in all likelihood because recent migrants tend to move
quite regularly immediately after arrival for a number of reasons related to the
adjustment process, job seeking, being near friends and relatives, and matching
accommodation to income levels.

For the younger age groups, 0-14 years and 15-24 years, the extent of actual mobility
captured in the 2001-06 data is lower than that for the total recent migrant population.
It illustrates typically higher levels of mobility in younger age groups than in older
age groups.

Among older movers, the number of moves captured in the 2001-06 data is greater
than that for the younger age groups. For persons aged 65+ years in the total
population, annualised mobility represented 78.7 percent of actual mobility, but for
the recent migrants, annualised mobility represented only 42.7 percent of actual
mobility. This means that for the recent migrant older population there is more
hidden mobility than is the case for older people in the total population. This suggests
that even for the older aged recent migrants, mobility in the 2005-06 period was
higher than that for the total population.

The situation for males is similar to that for females, but the level of ‘hidden’ mobility
in the 2001-06 data is greater for recent migrant males and females than for males and
females in the total population. For recent migrant males and females their hidden
mobility is over 70 percent, and this shortfall is due to the high levels of internal
mobility undertaken by migrants in their early years of settlement.
49
6.5.3
One Year Migration of Recent Migrants
Some 31,300 recent migrants moved residence between 2005-06, with 60.6 percent
moving interstate. Only Sydney and Adelaide experienced net outmigration, while Brisbane
had the largest gain. Outside the capitals, the main sinks were Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast,
Fitzroy and South West-WA.
6.6
CONCLUSION
The main purpose of the chapter was to identify the level of “hidden” mobility among
the total population and the recent migrant population. The analysis indicated, however, that
most of the prevailing patterns observed for the 2001-2006 period held for the 2005-2006
period. This notwithstanding, the chapter has indicated the high mobility of recently arrived
migrants. It has also shown that an important element in internal migration in Australia is a
small group who are ‘chronic movers’ and migrate more than once during the five year
intercensal period. Nevertheless there is strong reinforcement of the patterns discussed in
previous chapters including:

Overall, recent migrants are most mobile during their initial months and years in
Australia, as they adjust to life in a new country.

Large net outflows from Sydney and, to a lesser extent, other capital cities except
Brisbane and Perth. Settlement of new migrants in these capitals is their migration
growth engine, not internal migration. Only Brisbane experienced substantial
population growth due to net internal migration gain.

Coastal and near city areas are consistently recording significant net migration gains.
Most net gains are from internal migration but net international migration is
increasing in some areas.

There is a small but important net redistribution of skilled human capital from
metropolitan to non-metropolitan areas due to internal migration.

There is a consistent pattern of net internal migration loss of young adults from nonmetropolitan SDs and net gains in the capitals.

There is a significant net internal migration redistribution of baby boomers and the 65
years and older age group from metropolitan to non-metropolitan areas.

Internal migration between SDs is not very effective in bringing about a redistribution
of population because the net gains and losses recorded are very small compared with
the size of in migration and out migration flows. Most internal migration between
statistical divisions is counterbalancing.
50
CHAPTER 7. EFFECTS OF RECENT MIGRATION ON
POPULATION COMPOSITION IN REGIONS
7.1
INTRODUCTION
The goal of this chapter is to show the impact of recent migration on a number of
aspects of population composition. Only recent migrants’ impact within each capital city is
discussed. The principal growth metrics used are:




Total population and age
Labour force participation
Education and occupation
Access to housing market
In the main Report, tables detailing a number of relevant impacts of recent migrants
were prepared. An aspect of these tables particularly related to this chapter shows the impact
that recent migrants have had on each of the variables, in terms of how recent migrants have
increased numbers above the levels that would have prevailed in the absence of recent
migration. Selected impacts are referred to below, but full details are in the main Report.
7.2
SYDNEY, MELBOURNE,
STATISTICAL DIVISIONS
BRISBANE,
PERTH
AND
ADELAIDE
While a comprehensive statement is provided on the impact of recent migration in the
main Report, from section 7.2 to section 7.6, Table 7.1 through to Table 7.5summarises the
impacts for each of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide statistical divisions.
51
Table 7.1: Summary of recent migrant impacts within Sydney statistical division
Impact
Sydney
Total
population
In 2006, 369,000 recent migrants. Recent migrants have caused
population to be 11% greater than it would have been with recent
migration. Largest impact in Australia, compared with 9.8% in
Perth and 8.6% in Melbourne.
Age
structure
0-14 largest presence in any capital. Implications for education
provision presently, and workforce absorption in future.
15-64. Independent, working group. Largest present among
capitals. Generally, recent migrants have had biggest impact on
25-44, and younger, age groups; lesser contribution to older
groups.
Comments/Implications
Implications for workforce integration,
plus fertility, household formation, and
housing demand.
Labour
force
Recent migrants caused labour force to increase by 11.9 percent.
89.7% working, compared to 95% in rest of population. Higher
proportions of recent migrants unemployed in Hobart, Adelaide
and Melbourne.
Implications
associated
with
employment for large recent migrant
unemployed group.
Dependency
ratios
Recent migrant dependency ratios substantially different from
rest of population.
Without recent migration, DRs in
Sydney, Adelaide and Hobart would
have been above 50%.
In Sydney, recent migrants have reduced dependency ratio by
3.5% - highest in Australia.
Industry of
Occupation
In 2006, 149,300 recent migrants employed in tertiary industries
– largest number among capital cities. 84.4% of all industry
groups. Higher percentages occur in Hobart, Canberra and
Darwin.
Once migrants fuelled Australia’s
manufacturing sector. Now selected on
basis of different skills.
Occupation
Biggest group in Sydney is professionals and managers – 39.6%
of all employed recent migrants – ahead of clerical and sales
(23.1%).
Role of Sydney as source of
employment for highly skilled recent
migrants.
Income
Close to 140,000 have low incomes. Recent migrants have
increased this category by 14% above levels without recent
migration. Highest levels among capital city SDs.
Levels of recent migrant incomes have
implications
for
buying
power,
especially in terms of shelter. Income
levels of recent migrants reflects
immigration program balanced between
refugees and skilled migrants.
High income recent migrants have increased total numbers by
19.7 percent above those that would prevail without recent
migration.
Education
levels
Recent migrants are highly qualified. Number with bachelor
degree 2.5 times number with certificate qualification.
Recent migrants have caused numbers with bachelor degree to
increase by 23.1% above levels that would prevail without recent
migration.
Recent migrants have large capacity to
supplement intellectual capital and bring
skills to workforce and economy.
In 2006, 132,000 recent migrants still studying. From this pool,
varying degrees of contribution to host community can be
expected.
Housing
tenure and
dwelling
size
In 2006, 62 of recent migrants rented – the highest proportion
among the capitals – reflecting high housing costs in Sydney.
Largest impacts by recent migrants have been on dwellings at the
smaller end of the size spectrum. Number living in 1-2 bedroom
dwellings is 22.9% larger than would be case without recent
migration.
In the Sydney market, recent migrants
have substantial implications for both
public and private sectors in planning for
housing.
52
Table 7.2: Summary of recent migrant impacts within Melbourne statistical division
Impact
Melbourne
Comments/Implications
Total
population
262,000 recent migrants in 2006. Have caused population to be
8.6% higher than would have been in absence of recent
migration. 150,000 more recent migrants than in next ranked
Brisbane.
These numbers of recent migrants have
significant implications.
Age
structure
Size of 0-14 group only exceeded in Sydney. Therefore,
implications for education provision presently, and workforce
absorption in future.
Implications for workforce integration,
plus fertility, household formation, and
housing demand
215,000 aged 15-64 years – the dependent and workforce
population. 100,000 less than Sydney, but 100,000 more than in
Brisbane and Perth.
Labour
force
131,500 recent migrants in Melbourne’s labour force in 2006 –
87.8% working.
Unemployment levels are higher than Sydney, but lower than in
Adelaide and Hobart.
Important implications in terms of
increasing recent migrant proportions
with employment.
Dependency
ratios
Recent migrants have caused DR to be 2.6% less than would
have been case without recent migration. Greater than all other
capitals, other than Sydney.
Industry of
Occupation
95,000 (80.3%) employed in tertiary industries. Higher levels in
Sydney, Hobart, Canberra and Darwin. Propensity for work in
secondary industry is greater than that in Sydney, but lower than
for Brisbane and Adelaide.
Proportion of recent migrants in tertiary
industries in Melbourne, and Sydney, is
higher than the proportions in rest of
population. This may point to higher
level of entrepreneurship among recent
migrants.
Occupation
Largest group (43,940) is professional and managers. Recent
migrants have added 8.3% to this category since 1996. Next
ranked are clerical and sales, and operators, drivers and
labourers.
The relative significance of occupations
in recent migrant population matches
that of the rest of the population.
Income
Ranking of income groups similar to that for Sydney. Largest
category (66,000) is weekly income of $400-$999. Low income
recent migrants are 10.1% of Melbourne’s low income
population.
Significantly, recent migrant low income
numbers 3.5 times high income
numbers. Further, strong possibility of
geographical inequality in Melbourne
SD.
Nearly 300,000 recent migrants with income above $1000 per
week – 6.2 % of all persons in this group.
Education
levels
In 2006, 81,300 recent migrants with bachelor degree or higher,
and 35,400 with certificate or diploma. 2.3 times more recent
migrants with degree qualification than diploma. Further
104,000 still studying.
Recent migrants have capacity to inject
intellectual capabilities into economy.
Proportion of well qualified recent migrants in total population
less than in Sydney, but higher than in rest of capitals.
Recent migrants caused numbers with degrees to be 17.1%
higher, and for diplomas to be 6.9% higher, than would
otherwise have been the case.
Housing
tenure and
dwelling
size
More than 141,000 (57%) renting compared with 83,000 (33%)
buying. 21,000 (8.5%) owned outright.
In 2006, 157,000 (63%) recent migrants lived in 3-4 bedroom
dwellings. 31.3% lived in smaller dwellings.
Proportion in medium sized dwellings is 12.8 percent higher than
that in Sydney, but lower proportions prevail in other capitals.
Although Melbourne’s housing costs are
less than those in Sydney, 57% of recent
migrants rent compared with 19.6% in
rest of population.
While relativities with rest of population
can change with time, there are
implications in Melbourne, and Sydney,
for making housing tenure transitions
possible for greater numbers.
53
Table 7.3: Summary of recent migrant impacts within Brisbane statistical division
Impact
Brisbane
Comments/Implications
Total
population
In 2006 120,000 recent migrants in Brisbane. 7.1% of total population.
Brisbane population is 7.6% higher than would have been without recent
migration
Impact is less than in Sydney,
Melbourne and Perth, but does
indicate attractiveness to recent
migrants.
Age
structure
0-14 (24,000), 15-24 (25,000) and 25-44 (51,000) largest cohorts,
reflecting age selectivity of migration program. Lower numbers than in
Sydney and Melbourne.
Implications for youngest group
revolve
around
education
provision, for the older 15-24
group they are educational and
workforce related.
Impact of recent migrants on age structure similar to those for other
eastern seaboard capitals. But high interstate migration into Brisbane has
resulted in recent migrants proportions in various cohorts being lower
than in other capitals.
Labour
force
Working recent migrants are 91.6% of their labour force – as high as in
Canberra and little lower than Perth. Proportion of rest of population
working is 95.7%. Difference in Sydney id 5.3% and 7.2% in Sydney.
Recent migrants perceive higher
employment opportunities in
these capitals than in others.
Number working in Brisbane is 7.5% higher than would have been
without recent migrants. Relevant proportion for unemployed is 15.4%.
Unemployment
differential
between recent migrants and rest
of population of 4.1% has
implications for policy to reduce
this.
31,000 NILF – little higher than number in Perth, but only39% and 30%
of numbers in Melbourne and Sydney.
Dependency
ratios
Dependency ratio is 1.5% lower than would have been case without
recent migration. Less than impacts in Sydney and Melbourne. DR for
recent migrants is 29.3% compared with 47.5% for rest of population.
Industry of
Occupation
43,600 (77.6%) in tertiary industries – more than 3.5 times numbers in
secondary industries (21%).
Recent migrants are 9.4% of all persons in mining industries – compared
with 10.4% in Perth.
Occupation
19,600 (34.4%) recent migrants in professional and managerial
occupations.
21.7% in clerical and sales occupations.
Higher
proportions in professional and managers in Canberra and Hobart.
Biggest contribution to any occupational category id operators, drivers
and labourers – 8.5% of all persons in this category. Shows how recent
migrants are filling low skilled positions in mining and infrastructure
development.
Income
43,500 (47.2%) recent migrants with low income, 31,800 (34.5%) with
medium income and 16,800 (18.3%) with high income.
Proportion on low and medium income lowest among capitals –except
Darwin. Sydney, Canberra, Perth and Darwin have higher proportions
with high income.
Education
levels
Mining activities in Queensland,
and WA, have impact on recent
migrant proportions in these
industries.
In Brisbane, recent migrants
make significant contributions to
both professional and managerial
and operator, drivers and
labourer occupations.
For recent migrants, residence in
Brisbane does have positive
impacts for income, especially
for lower income earners.
Some 48,000 recent migrants have qualifications, and therefore skills,
relevant to the economy. 46,000 still studying.
Persons with bachelor degree or higher is 13.1 higher than would have
been with recent migration – percentage for diploma qualification is
7.1%.
Housing
tenure and
dwelling
size
51.5% recent migrants renting – only Perth had lower proportion.
Owners and buyers represent 47.6%
Total rental numbers 14.2% higher than would have been without recent
migration. Therefore, rental market is significant for recent migrants.
Impact on buying market is 6.3%, and on fully owned housing 3.2%.
In 2006, nearly 75% recent migrants lived in 3-4 bedroom housing,
compared with 17.7% in smaller dwellings.
Opportunities in Brisbane are
different from those generally
prevailing in other capitals. But,
these levels are significantly
different from levels prevailing
in rest of population.
54
Table 7.4: Summary of recent migrant impacts within Perth statistical division
Impact
Perth
Comments/Implications
Total
population
118,000 recent migrants in Perth in 2006 – 12.5% recent
migrants living in capitals, and fourth largest concentration.
Illustrates attractive power of WA
economy.
Age
structure
50,000 in 24-44 cohort, with 24,000 in each of 0-14 and 15-24
cohorts.
Age selectivity of migration program
shown by 42.3% recent migrants in
Perth are aged 25-44, compared with
27.3% in rest of population.
Labour
force
Size of recent migrant labour force is 58,000, slightly smaller
than that for Brisbane. 93% of recent migrants are employed –
only Darwin has higher level. Employment level in rest of
population is 96.5%.
Recent migrants move to Perth to seek
employment.
Workforce shortages
encourage successful job hunting.
Have caused labour force to expand by 9.7%, and working
population by 9.3% above level that would prevail without recent
migration. Larger impacts have only occurred in Sydney.
Dependency
ratios
DR for recent migrants is 30.7%, compared with 47.7% in rest of
population. Impact of recent migration on DR is 1.7% - third
largest impact among capitals.
Industry of
Occupation
Largest numbers are in tertiary and secondary industries. But
2,200 employed in mining – five times the number in Brisbane.
Mining industry in WA has critical
significance for recent migrants. 4% of
recent migrants work in mining
industries, compared with 3.2% for rest
of population.
Occupation
20,300 recent migrants in professional and managerial
occupations, 9,500 in technical and trades. 11,000 and 10,500
employed in clerical and sales and as operators, drivers and
labourers.
High numbers in occupations with high
skill and education requirements.
Income
Recent migrants with low income numbered 43,400 (48%),
medium income was 27,400 (30.3%) and 19,600 (21.7) on high
income. In rest of population, 23.3% were in high income
category.
Proportion with high income only
exceeded by Canberra, and nearly
matched by Darwin.
Education
levels
In 2006, 26,400 recent migrants had bachelor degree or higher,
22,000 had diploma. A further 45,600 still studying.
Recent migrants’ impact on the highly
qualified
component
of
Perth’s
population is significant.
Within total population, recent migrants with bachelor degree or
higher are 14.1% - higher than in Brisbane, equivalent to
Melbourne and less than the 18% for Sydney.
Recent migrants with certificate or diploma were 8.7% of total
population – the highest representation among the capital cities.
Housing
tenure and
dwelling
size
Recent
migrants
with
technical
qualifications play important role in
mining industry in Western Australia.
46,400 recent migrants lived in rental housing, lower than levels
in eastern seaboard capitals. This is 12,000 less than in Brisbane,
which had 2,000 more recent migrants.
Skill level of recent migrants, plus high
labour demand in WA, has implications
for housing tenure.
48,500 buying own home, 7,000 more than in Brisbane.
Recent migrants have had an impact on
housing that has not occurred in any
other capital.
2,000 more recent migrants in Perth than in Brisbane own their
home.
77.5% of recent migrants lived in 3-4 bedroom housing, the
highest proportion in any capital. 12.9% lived in smaller
housing, the lowest proportion in the capitals.
55
Table 7.5: Summary of recent migrant impacts within Adelaide statistical division
Impact
Adelaide
Comments/Implications
Total
population
In 2006, 51,400 recent migrants in Adelaide, less than half the
number in fourth ranked Perth. Recent migrants have caused
population to be 5.2% above what would have been without
recent migration.
Adelaide in second league in terms of
recent migrants.
Age
structure
22,400 (43.6%) recent migrants aged 25-44 years, compared with
12,600 in 15-24 years cohort.
Labour
force
19,800 (86.6%) recent migrants employed. 13.4% unemployed –
only Hobart has higher unemployment among recent migrants.
In rest of population, unemployment was 5.1%.
There is an acute need for employment
opportunities to be found in Adelaide for
recent migrants.
Recent migrants not in labour force number 16,700. This is
42.3% of all recent migrants. This level only exceeded in
Hobart, and nearly 5% higher than next ranked Melbourne.
Dependency
ratios
DR for recent migrants is 27.5%, compared with DR in rest of
population of 50.7%. Recent migrants have had effect of total
population DR to 49.3%
Industry of
Occupation
Although actual numbers much less, proportions employed in
each industry group almost identical to that for Brisbane. 77% of
recent migrants in tertiary industries and 21% in secondary.
Highest recent migrant presence in each industry is mining.
Occupation
Largest occupation group is professional and managerial (7,300;
35%). In contrast to other capital cities, operators, drivers and
labourers was second ranked occupation (4,500; 21.6%).
SA has a developing mining industry,
and this should provide increasing
opportunities for employment for recent
migrants.
Recent migrants have high presence in
both high status and low status
occupations.
Recent migrants’ contribution to total numbers in each
occupation group was greatest for operators, drivers and
labourers and community and personal services (5.4% each).
Income
Greatest number (23,300) of recent migrants in low income –
58.7% of all recent migrants. Only Hobart has higher proportion.
Numbers in medium and high income classes were 28.2% and
13.2% respectively.
Education
levels
13,100 recent migrants with bachelor degree or higher, 7,700
with certificate or diploma and 24,200 still studying. Within
total population, recent migrants with bachelor degree or higher
was 9.9%, lower than levels in “big four” capitals, but higher
than in remaining capitals. Same situation for recent migrants
with certificate or diploma qualifications.
Housing
tenure and
dwelling
size
56% (26,800) in rental accommodation – same levels as in
Melbourne, Hobart, Canberra and Darwin. 37% were buying
their home, and 10.1%were outright owners. This level higher
than for Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra and Darwin.
Income distribution for recent migrant in
Adelaide is substantially negatively
skewed.
Housing
affordability,
even
for
dominantly low income groups, appears
to be greater in Adelaide than in a
number of other capitals.
32,500 (67.4%) recent migrants lived in medium sized housing,
with 3-4 bedrooms. Only Brisbane, Perth and Canberra had
higher proportions. 27.2% lived in smaller housing.
7.3
HOBART, CANBERRA AND DARWIN STATISTICAL DIVISIONS
In 2006, there were 16,000 recent migrants living in Canberra, 5,000 in Hobart and
4,500 in Darwin. Between them, these three capitals contained 2.7 percent of Australia’s
recent migrants.
56
7.3.1
Recent migrants’ impact on age structure
In terms of age structure, details of which are presented in the main Report, these
capitals have, for all intents and purposes, the same structure as occurs in the other capital
cities. When recent migrants’ share of the total population in each of the cohorts is
considered, relative to Hobart, Darwin and Canberra are both “younger” cities
7.3.2
Recent migrants and labour force status
Of the three capitals, the largest (8,300) recent migrant labour force resided in
Canberra. Its labour force was more than four times that for Hobart and nearly four times
larger than in Darwin. The proportion employed recent migrants was 94.1 percent in Darwin
and 91.4 percent in Canberra, but only 84.7 percent in Hobart. The proportion of working
recent migrants in the total working population was 4.7 percent in both Canberra and Darwin,
and 2.1 percent in Hobart. For unemployed people, recent migrants were 12.0 percent of all
unemployed in Canberra, 7.6 percent in Darwin and 5.8 percent in Hobart.
7.3.3
Impact of recent migration on industry of occupation
There are a number of points to be made for the industry of recent migrants:

Between them, just over 100 recent migrants work in primary industries.

Only 28 recent migrants work in mining industries.

Less than 1,000 employed in secondary industries, with more than half in Canberra

The largest numbers are employed in tertiary industries –93.9 percent in Canberra,
87.1 percent in Darwin and 86.5 percent in Hobart.
7.3.4
Impact of recent migrants on occupation structure
In 2006, the largest occupation group was for professionals and managers. The
second largest numerical group was for clerical and sales occupations. Recent migrants
employed as operators, drivers and labourers was the third largest group for Canberra and
Darwin, and the fourth largest group in Hobart. When compared with total population,
Canberra and Darwin generate similar proportions, with lower levels in Hobart. Canberra
influences the number of recent migrants in professional occupations, while resource
development labour demand influences the numbers employed in technical occupations in
Darwin.
7.3.5
Income levels of recent migrants
In Darwin 39 percent of recent migrants have low income, compared with 48.7
percent in Canberra and 60.4 percent in Hobart. Clearly, Darwin is a “working” capital for
recent migrants. For medium incomes, between $400 and $999 per week, the proportions in
Darwin and Canberra are similar, but lower in Hobart. For high weekly incomes the
proportion in Canberra is 23.4 percent, compared Darwin (21.3) and Hobart (15.3). The
proportion of recent migrants with high income in Canberra is the highest prevailing in any of
the Australian capital cities.
7.3.6
Effect of recent migration on educational attainment levels
In both Darwin and Canberra, recent migrants comprise around eight percent of all
persons with a bachelor degree or higher, compared with 3.6 and 3.9 percent respectively for
certificate or diploma qualifications. The proportion of recent migrants still studying is
greater in Canberra than it is in Darwin.
57
7.3.7
Recent migrants and housing tenure
The proportions in each tenure category in each city show some similarities. The
proportion owners/buyers is 42.8 percent in Canberra, 41.8 percent in Hobart and 41.4
percent in Darwin. The percentages for recent migrants living in rented accommodation are
56.5, 56.5 and 56.8 percent for Canberra, Hobart and Darwin respectively. In each capital,
the greatest numbers live in 3-4 bedroom dwellings.
7.4
SUMMARY
In 2006 there were 1.121 million recent migrants in Australia, with 39 percent in
Sydney, compared with 27.7 percent in Melbourne and 12.7 and 12.5 percent in Brisbane and
Perth respectively. These are the “big four” in terms of recent migrants. The recent migrant
population is diverse with large proportions of low skilled persons balanced by a high skilled
and well educated component. As well, significant proportions of recent migrants are
furthering their education in Australia. The most significant implications related to skills and
qualifications revolve around the fact that recent migrants seem determined to improve their
education, and experience indicates that the next generation will take even greater advantages
of the educational opportunities offered by the host country.
There is a high demand for rental accommodation by recent migrants, especially in
Sydney, and has many implications for housing provision in that city. The proportion of
recent migrants renting housing is greater in every capital city that the proportion of the
remainder of the population in rental tenure. Within the capital cities Perth is the standout
capital city. There are signs of recent migrants developing typical tendencies to transition
through the various tenure categories, particularly in Brisbane and Perth. There is also
evidence that recent migrants will embark on their own housing careers, moving
progressively from smaller to larger sized housing.
7.5
THE EFFECTS OF RECENT MIGRANTS ON NATURAL INCREASE
7.5.1
Introduction
Recent immigrants not only contribute to regional population growth, but they also
impact on natural increase to the extent that they have Australia-born children and the extent
to which they die. Because recent migrants are heavily concentrated in the childbearing ages
their impact on natural increase is significant. A methodology was developed to estimate the
number of children born to capital city recent migrants between 1996 and 2006. The analysis
showed that recent migrants have contributed some 105,000 to capital city populations
through births over the last decade. Recent migrants who arrived between 1996 and 2001
contributed 4.3 percent of all births in Australian capital cities over the last decade (5.8
percent in Sydney) while the group arriving between 2001 and 2006 have contributed 4.1
percent of births over the five years to 2006. Migrants of the last ten years have accounted
for 5.4 percent of Sydney’s births and 4.2 percent of all births in Australian capital cities over
the 1996-2006 period.
A key finding is that a substantial proportion of the natural increase in population
attributed to recent arrivals is occurring in Sydney, followed by Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth,
Adelaide and Canberra. Of the estimated 71,000 children born to recent migrants who
arrived between 1997 and 2001, 54 percent were born to recent migrants living in capital
cities other than Sydney. The comparable figure for recent migrants who arrived in the 20022006 period is 60 percent. Around 87 percent of children born to recent migrants have been
born in capital cities. Further, by fertility recent migrants have increased their numbers by
nearly ten percent. These children present significant implications for health and education,
58
and for housing suitable for expanding families. And, these estimated numbers will continue
to increase as younger recent migrants move through the childbearing stage.
7.5.2
Summary
The impact of recent migrants on the births component of natural increase has been
significant. They have added 120,000 children to the population, with some 105,000 of these
born in capital cities. Their contribution to fertility will continue for a number of years as
younger recent migrants move through their child bearing stage of life. Recent migrants’
fertility has implications for service providers in a number of areas, especially in health,
education and housing. Recent migrants have other social impacts including household
formation through marriage, and marriage within the Australian born population. Although
a consideration of this issue is important it is, however, considered to beyond the scope of
this current investigation.
59
CHAPTER 8. FUTURE MIGRATION AND
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
8.1
INTRODUCTION
Australian international migration has always been volatile, influenced both by
government policy and shifts in the national economy. Hence anticipating future migration
levels, let alone where migrants will settle, is a hazardous exercise. This chapter discusses
factors likely to impinge on future migration levels, including intake sizes and compositions,
variations in fertility and mortality, changing economic and labour market conditions, social
attitude and emerging environmental issues, and their implications for population distribution
in the States and Territories. There is also consideration of some implications of these future
migration scenarios related to:

Population and migration policies

Regional development policies and strategies

Provision of settlement services

Planning and delivery of government services

Housing requirements

Liveability, productivity and sustainability

Community harmony, cohesion and acceptance of diversity.
The initial discussion is a round the issue of future levels of international migration at
the national level, important because the level of international migration is a fundamental
determinant of national population growth. The next part focus is on future patterns of
population distribution across Australia and the role of migration in that. While population
projection at the national level involves many uncertainties, these are multiplied at the
regional level. There is also a discussion of the role of policy, as this will be critical in
shaping future patterns of immigrant settlement, internal population movement and
population growth. The final part of the chapter assesses some of the implications of a
changing population distribution.
8.2
ASSESSING THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION IN
AUSTRALIA
8.2.1
Introduction
Anticipating future population trends is a hazardous exercise, and Australia faces a
dilemma when planning the future course of its population growth because, simultaneously,
there are strong pressures for growth, related to anticipated labour and skill shortages and the
retirement of baby boomers from the workforce, and for constraint related to environment
and climate issues. A sound and responsible population policy must take into account both
positions to achieve growth with sustainability. Debate to this end is of paramount
importance in setting immigration policy, targets and quotas.
60
8.2.2
Ageing of the Australian Population
Over the next two decades much population growth will occur in the older age
groups. Even with significant migration and maintaining fertility at current levels there will
be little, if any, net growth in the younger working ages. Clearly, we need to maintain
growth to counterbalance the massive growth of the older population. With the passage of
baby boomers into retirement, in the next two decades 40 percent of the current workforce
will retire. Without immigration there will be insufficient numbers of young people entering
the workforce to replace them, let alone provide new workers for expected economic growth.
Other advanced countries will also need high skill migrants, so that already intense
international competition for skills will strengthen over the next two decades.
8.2.3
Economic Drivers
Anticipating changes in the Australian economy is a less certain science. However,
economic conditions and job creation are key factors impacting on future demand for
immigration. While immigration will assist in replacing retiring baby boomers, to what
extent are developments likely to create new jobs? There are views that labour demand in the
next few years can only be met by increased population growth, especially in the resource
rich states of Queensland and Western Australia, where existing labour shortages are at
critical levels.
8.2.4
The Environment and Climate Change
There is evidence that for some time most of the water in south western and south
eastern Australia, where the population is concentrated, is committed. Presently, climate
change is assuming greater significance, and most of Australia’s population centres,
containing almost 90 percent of Australia’s population, are in the areas experiencing
decreasing rainfall. Environment and climate change issues can potentially influence future
net migration levels through their impact on attitudes toward population growth in general
and immigration in particular. Hence, one of the major effects of environment and climate
change on future immigration may be through public attitudes to the population-environment
relationship.
8.2.5
The Role of Migration Networks
Migrant networks shape much migration because, despite myths to the contrary, most
migrants move along channels trodden previously by friends and relatives and move to places
where they have friends and relatives who assist them in settling in, getting a job, and
obtaining housing. This means that there is an increasing element of self-perpetuating
momentum growing in the Australian international migration system, and that migration will
continue to some extent regardless of the economic situation.
8.2.6
The Linkage with Temporary Migration
There has been a massive increase in temporary residents since the mid 1990s, which
has transformed the Australian migration landscape. At any one time there are over 600,000
persons temporarily present. These people consume resources, use infrastructure, and occupy
housing and need to be considered in all planning. However, they are also very important
because an increasing number of them who come as 457s or students apply for, and obtain,
permanent residence in Australia. Temporary migrants making the transition to permanent
residence will continue to be an important part of Australia’s net annual overseas migration
gain.
61
8.2.7
Emigration
International migration in Australia is emphatically a two-way process involving both
losses and gains. This has always been the case and is increasingly so. Accordingly, from a
projection perspective, it is net migration which influences population change. Through
emigration there are substantial net losses in the 20s and early 30s age groups. Settler loss,
too, is a significant factor with over a fifth of permanent settlers eventually leaving Australia.
8.3
SOME NET OVERSEAS MIGRATION (NOM) ISSUES
Australian immigration has reached unprecedented levels in recent years, with NOM
almost trebling between 2003-04 and 2008-09. However, NOM data increasingly do not
indicate long term permanent additions, mainly because in recent years the numbers of
temporary migrants entering the country, especially students, is much greater than those
leaving and this has pushed up the NOM figures.
8.4
WHAT NET MIGRATION ASSUMPTIONS SHOULD BE USED TO
EXAMINE REGIONAL IMPACTS UP TO 2021?
Despite much public discourse in 2010 about the rapid rates of population growth and
the likely future trajectory of growth, there is no reason not to use the assumptions contained
in the most recent set of population projections made by the ABS (2008). Little is gained by
any proliferation of projections with marginal differences in the assumptions which are
adopted.
While international migration will always fluctuate with shifts in the global, national
and state economies, longer term underlying structural features are likely to maintain net
migration gains at their current relatively high levels:

Replacing baby boomer workers will not be met by school leavers.

The continuing mining boom will exacerbate the skilled labour shortages.

A global ‘war for talent’ will result in Australia losing talent to other countries but
also gaining even larger numbers from other countries.

The momentum injected by increasingly strong migration networks.
On the other hand there are a number of forces which will constrain expansion of
migration beyond the levels included in the assumptions:

An increasing appreciation of water and energy shortages.

An increasing understanding of the potential impact of climate change.

Increasing workforce participation rates among the Australian resident population.

Increasing of retirement ages to keep people in the workforce longer.

Increased training and education to reduce reliance on skills from abroad.

Increasing competition for skilled migrants from other countries, not only in Europe
and North America but in Asia’s growing economies.

The impact of the Global Financial Crisis.
The ABS allocates NOM between states/territories and between capital city/rest of
state according to the ratios which prevailed over the 2001-06 period. An official definition
62
of ‘regional’ is currently under consideration by the ABS but the present study has defined
the population outside of the capital city statistical divisions as regional. The ABS
assumptions indicate small regional changes up to 2011 after which the distribution between
the states remain constant. These changes, miniscule and with minor effects, basically
project a status quo in the distribution of where new immigrants settle in Australia.
The ABS assumes that the rates between Capital City and Rest of State (considered
here as the regional population) remains constant throughout the projection period. However,
it is argued that this assumption needs to be changed in the next set of population projections,
given that this study has demonstrated a small but significant tendency for migrants to settle
outside of the capital cities to a greater extent than in the past.
The performance of the projections against actual estimates for the 2005-09 period
can be gauged, and it is clear that even the most optimistic assumptions in Series A have
underestimated substantially the level of net migration by 41.8 percent. The other Series (B
and C) would understate the actual level by even more. The underestimates apply across
each state and territory with NSW and Victoria being close to the national average,
Queensland being slightly below and Western Australia slightly over, South Australia and
Northern Territory well below the national average and ACT substantially above it. This
underestimation of NOM in the first few years of the projection period should not change the
decision to use the established ABS projections to examine the potential impact of
international migration on regions up to 2021 simply because, as indicated above, they are
inflated by the one-off excess of temporary resident gains over temporary resident departures.
8.5
PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH IN REGIONS
8.5.1
Introduction
This section assesses the projected populations for regional (i.e. outside the capital
statistical divisions) parts of each state and territory, using population projections prepared by
both the ABS and state based government agencies.
8.5.2
New South Wales
A continuation of the pattern of net international migration gain in Sydney and
internal migration loss is anticipated. The level of intake in Sydney will depend on the level
of the national intake and also the extent to which current initiatives to encourage immigrants
to settle away from gateway cities are successful. Sydney’s dominance as the largest single
destination of new arrivals is likely to be reduced. The net internal migration losses to nonmetropolitan NSW and other parts of Australia may increase as more of the large baby
boomer cohorts in Sydney age into the pre-retirement and retirement years and participate in
‘sea change’ or tree change migration. There is evidence that high housing costs, congestion,
and long journeys to work may cause net migration losses to be toward the higher end of the
projections.
In non-metropolitan NSW, the projections of net international migration gain for each
Series are quite low, but the higher projections are most likely to be the case and may prove
too small if initiatives to encourage immigrant settlement outside gateway cities are given
greater emphasis. Newcastle and Wollongong are significant poles of attraction for
immigrants, and this should continue, but there is increasing evidence of immigrant
settlement in smaller centres. There are developments which would suggest that the existing
tendencies for net migration from Sydney to non-metropolitan NSW will increase in the
future.
63
8.5.3
Victoria
Victoria’s projections of net international migration gain are slightly lower than those
for NSW but the overall total net migration growth is anticipated to be greater for Melbourne
than Sydney. Hence, it is expected that Melbourne will continue to close the gap in
population size between the two cities over the projection period. Victoria is intent on
increasing the state’s share of the immigrant intake with most expected to settle in
Melbourne. Melbourne has not experienced the same degree of net internal migration loss as
Sydney and has recorded small net gains in several years over the last decade or so. The
projections anticipate that Melbourne will experience significant net internal migration
losses, albeit small losses when compared with Sydney, but are larger than previously
experienced.
Outside the capital, the Victorian government wants to lift population growth to one
percent per annum, and this is supported in the ABS projections. There are recent indications
of increasing settlement of new immigrants in non-metropolitan areas not only in Geelong,
Bendigo and Ballarat but in areas like Shepparton, which may result in an underestimate in
the projections. The projected net internal migration gains are substantially lower than the
net gains in non-metropolitan areas anticipated for NSW. However, regional growth may be
greater than projected given the government’s Population Policy. Victoria’s Department of
Sustainability and Environment has prepared projections which indicate that the fastest rate
of population growth will be in Melbourne. Nevertheless there are several SDs in which
rapid growth rates are anticipated – Barwon, Central Highlands, Loddon, Goulburn, East
Gippsland and Gippsland, which include regional cities (e.g. Geelong, Bendigo), and newer
‘sea change’ and ‘tree change’ areas.
Some regional centres in Victoria have a long history of immigrant settlement or have
made concerted efforts to attract immigrants in recent times. Hence, non-metropolitan
Victoria should attract significant immigrant numbers over the next decade.
8.5.4
Queensland
Queensland’s rapid growth over several decades and will continue. Its projected net
internal and international migration is greater than for any other state. Net overseas
migration is likely to contribute more to Queensland’s growth than internal migration through
to 2026. In Brisbane net international migration is the dominant component of net migration
growth, indicating that Brisbane is becoming one of Australia’s major gateway cities for new
immigrants. Brisbane is moving toward the established pattern in other Euro-American
gateway cities of net international migration gain but net internal migration loss
Non-metropolitan Queensland is anticipated to be the dominant region of nonmetropolitan population growth in Australia. Net international migration will be an
important part of this growth, with much of this occurring in the Gold and Sunshine Coasts,
and other coastal centres. However, the largest element in non-metropolitan growth will be
from net internal migration gain.
Queensland Government’s projections indicate strong population growth in south
eastern and coastal parts of the state. Mining and resource development has particular
salience for regional Queensland. However, the implications for regional population growth
are unclear, in the light of developing fly in-fly out strategies. Clearly, careful consideration
needs to be given of the potential role of mining to facilitate regional development.
64
8.5.5
South Australia
South Australia has experienced low growth rates linked to very low international
immigration and net interstate migration loss. In response the South Australian government
developed a Population Policy which aimed to increase business, skilled and humanitarian
migration and achieve zero net interstate migration by 2008. It has exceeded the first target,
but has been unsuccessful in the second. Future international migration will be influenced by
changes in economic growth and a continuation of State Specific Regional Migration
schemes. International migration is the dominant migration driver of growth in Adelaide
with a continuation of net internal migration losses within the state and to interstate locations.
For non-metropolitan South Australia, it is important to note that South Australia is
the most primate of the Australian states. Accordingly, relatively low immigration is
anticipated for regional SA. Some factors, including mining expansion and government
regional development policies, could be modified this expectation. A key issue is the
retention of new international migrants, especially SSRM scheme migrants.
Recent projections prepared by the State government indicate that overall growth will
fall from 1.2 percent per annum during 2006-2016 to one percent in 2016-21. Rates more
than twice these are expected in the Outer Adelaide SD which contains sea change and tree
change areas as well as peri-urban development. Elsewhere population growth is anticipated
to be less than 0.6 percent although mining is likely to attract some immigrant settlement.
8.5.6
Western Australia
Western Australia has recorded rapid growth over a long period. Perth, like other
capitals, relies predominantly on net international migration for net migration growth. WA’s
rapidly growing economy, especially the mining sector, means that international migration
will remain very strong. Outside of Perth the ABS projections have relatively modest
expectations about international migration, despite the expected rapid growth of the nonmetropolitan economy, especially in mining. The key question remains the extent to which
mining industry jobs result in increased settlement in regional Western Australia. The ABS
projections suggest significant net internal migration into non-metropolitan areas. It may be
that mining demand will ‘suck workers in’ from Perth and elsewhere in Australia rather than
attract recently arrived immigrants. Projections prepared by the Western Australian
government anticipate substantial growth for Perth, and even faster growth in the Kimberley
and the South West. Expected growth in the Pilbara is half the State average. Significant
growth is expected in Perth’s peri-urban areas and slow growth in the dry land farming areas.
8.5.7
Tasmania
There is only a slightly greater net gain expected for Hobart than the rest of the state.
Both the capital and regional Tasmania expect net international migration gains. Projections
for internal migration range from small net gains to small net losses during the period,
depending on the Series, with similar expectations for non metropolitan Tasmania.
Anticipated net migration gains and population growth levels in Tasmania over the next
decade are lower than for the mainland states. However, in the longer term climate change
may influence Tasmania’s population growth. State Government projections show a
relatively even pattern of low population growth across the island with slightly higher rates in
Hobart.
8.5.8
Northern Territory
Both measuring and projecting population growth in the Northern Territory has
always been difficult because of a high level of mobility in its population, both Indigenous
65
and non-Indigenous. Projections for the Northern Territory show similar patterns to the other
small states and territories with small variations in net international migration gains but net
internal migration ranging from small gains and losses, depending on the Series. Most net
gain is in Darwin which has always had a significant overseas-born community. Northern
Territory Treasury projections are for Darwin and Rest of Territory, and they indicate that the
Northern Territory is expected to grow faster than the nation as a whole over the next decade
– 1.4 percent per annum with the rate being twice as high in Darwin than elsewhere in the
Territory.
8.5.9
Australian Capital Territory
For the ACT there are quite substantial differences in the ABS projections, depending
on the Series. Hence, Series A projects a net migration gain of 40,700 by 2021, Series C
projects a net migration loss of 5,300. Series A has net internal migration being greater than
net international migration, while the reverse is expected under the assumptions of Series C.
8.5.10 Summarising a Scenario of Future Regional Population Change
The analysis has identified statistical divisions in regional Australia with anticipated
population growth near or above the national average over the next decade – see Figure 8.1.
Figure 8.1:
Australia:
Non-Metropolitan Statistical Divisions with Population
Projected Growth at More than One Percent per Annum, 2011-21
In the growth of regions international migration is playing an increasing role and it is
likely that this trend will continue in the next decade. Regional growth areas can be
classified into a number of types with differing levels of international migration involvement
– peri-urban areas around major cities, mining areas and coastal areas
It is important to note that it is not only rapidly growing areas that will experience an
influx of immigrants over the next decade. There will be regional areas where the influence
of ageing on the labour force, and the outmigration of young Australians, will encourage
immigrants to fill available jobs, especially in primary production and processing of primary
production. The extent to which new immigrants settle outside Australian capital cities in the
next decade will be shaped by the continued growth in non-metropolitan based economic
66
activity creating jobs, ageing of non-metropolitan populations exacerbated by significant net
internal loss of the 15-29 age category to major cities, and sea change and tree change
migration. Further, these trends could be significantly enhanced by policy.
8.6
POLICIES TO INFLUENCE WHERE MIGRANTS SETTLE
Several major shifts in Australian international migration policy over the last decade
need to be recognised in formulating population policy at the state and local level. As a
result, the potential to directly influence not only who migrates to Australia but also where in
Australia they settle is significant and increasing in importance. Three new elements of the
Australian immigration system introduced since the mid 1990s have increasingly channelled
immigrants to settle in particular parts of Australia. These are State Specific Regional
Migration Schemes (SSRM), the introduction of the 457 temporary skilled worker scheme,
and the development by DIAC of a new approach to identifying and establishing new
regional locations for humanitarian settlement and settling new arrivals in those locations.
State/Territory and local governments are playing an increasing role in shaping where
migrants settle and in assisting them in their settlement. These efforts represent a viable and
effective approach to maximising the impact of international migration on overcoming
regional labour shortages. An important issue, however, is the extent to which migrants
remain in the original area once they have met their settlement obligations. Significantly,
there is limited evidence which indicates that the majority of new migrants deliberately
settled outside the gateway cities are remaining in those areas. Employment opportunities, as
well as adjustment and satisfaction levels related to children’s education, social networks and
integration into the local community are important factors in deciding whether a household
settles permanently in a location.
8.7
IMPLICATIONS OF FUTURE MIGRATION FOR REGIONAL AUSTRALIA
8.7.1
Population Policy
The last year has seen an unprecedented focus on the future of Australia’s population,
with the government now committed to a Sustainable Population Strategy. What are some of
the implications of the present report for this strategy?





It must address issues of population distribution as well as population size and
composition.
International migration is becoming significantly important in regional population
growth, especially in areas of rapid development. As regional populations age, and
youth losses occur, migrants can be expected to increasingly fill available job
opportunities.
A national population strategy needs to encourage and facilitate internal and
international migration into regions of labour shortage, ensuring that infrastructure
development and service provision occurs hand in hand with these policies.
This study has demonstrated conclusively that Australians and international migrants
will move to where there are opportunities, and a population policy should develop a
region’s economic potential to sustain larger populations. It should act to ‘grease the
rails’ of existing population flows which are both economically and environmentally
sustainable.
Consideration of the baby boomer generation in regional development must be an
important part of any national population policy for the next two decades. Their
mobility will influence the rate of population growth in many regional communities.
In certain instances, their movement can be an important catalyst and economic
multiplier for growth in local employment.
67

8.7.2
A national population strategy needs to explicitly consider the indigenous population
as a major element in regional populations and their development.
Immigration Policy
Permanent and Temporary migrants settle in Australia in different ways from the
resident population and have an important impact in shaping population distribution. With
permanent migration there has been a general tendency for a greater proportion to settle
outside capital cities, particularly for humanitarian settlers. Temporary migrant are playing
an increasing role in meeting workforce needs in some non-metropolitan areas, especially in
mining areas in Western Australia and Queensland, in tourism areas and in
horticultural/intensive agricultural areas.
A population policy relevant to immigrants needs to be aware that those most
attracted to the regions typically comprise young families, retirees and those in the preretirement years; that employment for both men and women is important, but not the only
driver; that liveability and lifestyle dimensions are critically important as is availability of
affordable and appropriate housing. As well, a population policy should develop
communities which welcome new arrivals and help them to settle in, as the early stages of
settlement are crucial in determining whether newcomers remain.
As Australia moves toward a greater focus on regional development in response to
environmental pressures and shifts in economic structure, international migration will play an
important role. To estimate the extent of this role does require, however, a comprehensive
analysis be undertaken to accurately establish the current and potential future role of
international migration, both permanent and temporary, in meeting regional labour needs.
8.7.3
Regional Development Policy
Australia’s settlement system has been in place for 150 years. But is it an optimal
system? Can it facilitate a more economically and environmentally sustainable future?
Could its modification deliver medium and long term dividends such as:

A release of the economic potential of regions hitherto retarded by a lack of
infrastructure investment.

A better balance between the distribution of people and water.

Relieving growth pressures in and near the capital cities on scarce quality agricultural
land and existing infrastructure.

Reducing pollution and environmental degradation in cities, increasing housing
availability and affordability, and reducing journey to work costs.
The key to shifting growth from the large cities to regional areas is infrastructure.
There is a need to think strategically about where infrastructure investment is made. Is there
a case for providing infrastructure to facilitate growth in some regions outside of the capital
cities where there is the economic potential to sustain a much larger community, the
resources available to support a larger population and appropriate policy and safeguards to
absorb population growth without compromising environmental sustainability?
Post war period attempts to change the Australian settlement system through
decentralisation achieved very little decentralisation. These attempts were half hearted –
‘Decentralisation is everybody’s policy but nobody’s program’ – and seen as a laudable goal
but with no government commitment to the large investment required. It could be argued that
the current context is different. Certainly, the Australian economy is structurally different.
Transport and communications revolutions have made many economic activities ‘footloose’
68
and not constrained to large cities, and many more people want to live in regional localities.
And most Australian states and territories have developed plans to provide a framework for
their regional development. There remains the question of how increases in infrastructure
can be funded when there are clearly backlogs of existing need for infrastructure.
Governments will play a role but increasingly models involving public-private partnerships
and user pays elements will need to be considered.
8.7.4
Settlement Services
Research on immigrant settlement in regional areas has drawn attention to the
importance of immigrant settlers having access to appropriate services in their early years of
settlement. This is a critical element to their longer term settlement. Providing settlement
services outside of capital cities presents some significant challenges for DIAC, especially in
settling newer birthplace groups into regional localities which have no history of non English
speaking (NES) settlement. Undoubtedly the adjustment of new migrants in regional
communities and of the communities to the migrant is a topic of needed research. This
notwithstanding, there are a few policy dimensions which are clear. Regional settlement will
involve less clustering of immigrant groups and make provision of post-arrival services more
difficult than is the case where immigrants mainly settle in capital cities. Further, there will
be less informal support available than would often be available in large cities, and local
government should be more heavily involved in supplying needed post-arrival services.
8.7.5
Planning and Delivery of Government Services
While the availability of suitable employment is a necessary condition for attracting
immigrants to peripheral areas, it alone is often not sufficient to attract them. The key
elements in their making the move relate to factors such as lifestyle, availability of suitable
employment for partners, availability of appropriate schooling for children and the
appropriate provision of a range of services and social and economic opportunities. Hence
while the availability of employment is basic it is often other elements which are crucial in
the decision to migrate to peripheral areas. State and local government has a responsibility to
provide these services, and provide them in a ‘migrant friendly’ way.
8.7.6
Housing Requirements
Housing shortage and affordability issues are significant in non-metropolitan as well
as metropolitan areas. Housing is a major constraint on regional population growth and any
initiatives to accommodate a greater proportion of immigrant intake in regional areas should
include consideration of the pressure that it will place on local housing markets. Australia’s
present housing crisis is often seen as only a crisis in Australia’s major cities, but strategic
initiatives to overcome the crisis must include a full consideration of the crisis in regional
areas.
8.7.7
Liveability, Productivity and Sustainability
Liveability is the attributes of a place that contribute to the wellbeing and quality of
life of its residents. There is currently concern about the potential loss of ‘liveability’
associated with growth and there are some aspects of liveability that can be improved.
Population growth has put pressure on liveability in Australian cities through increased
pressure on infrastructure, housing, environment and redesigning our cities so that they are
more liveable for more people is a national challenge. From the perspective of the present
study it is reasonable to ask to what extent would absorbing a greater percentage of
Australian population growth in regional areas relieve pressure within capital cities and
facilitate their redesign to enhance their liveability, and to what extent can regional
69
development enhance the liveability of regional communities and provide more Australians
with opportunities to settle in liveable regional communities?
Counterbalancing the impacts of an ageing Australian population will necessitate
increases in population, participation and productivity. Achievement of increments in
productivity is critical to Australia’s future.
Economic growth and improved wellbeing of the Australian population should not be
at the cost of the environment. The key challenges for Australian governments and the
Australian people is achieving a balance in policy and programs and in the behaviour of
individuals, families and businesses which takes fully into account environmental
sustainability goals. This is not an easy process. It means that the value of environmental
services will need to be brought more comprehensively, transparently and explicitly into
decision making. The relationship between growth and environment is complex and needs to
be understood if population policy and environmental policy are to be integrated to move
toward a more sustainable future. Clearly sustainability outcomes need to be an essential
element in discussions about development beyond the capitals.
8.7.8
Community Harmony, Cohesion and Acceptance of Diversity
Australia is one of the most ethnically diverse nations due primarily to post war
migration which has facilitated a transition from an almost homogenous Anglo-Celtic society
to one of considerable diversity. This diversity has presented many challenges, mainly
related to building social cohesion and resilience. Most post war immigration involved
settlement in Australia’s large cities, and where there was settlement in non-metropolitan
areas it was limited largely to regional cities and rural areas with intensive agriculture.
Hence, the trend toward more immigrants settling in non-metropolitan areas raises issues of
community harmony, cohesion and acceptance of diversity.
One of the encouraging findings of studies of the new immigrant settlement in
regional Australia is that while there have been significant issues relating to the acceptance of
new groups into rural communities there have been a number of real success stories. There
will undoubtedly be problems associated with the settlement of distinctly different groups in
communities which hitherto have been relatively homogeneously Anglo-Celtic. However,
there is evidence that many regional communities have belied ‘redneck’ stereotypes and
embraced newcomers. It is clearly very important to engage local communities in the
planning of the settlement of such groups and also in ongoing efforts to assist in settlement.
However, this an area of migrant settlement that needs considerable empirical research to
properly inform policy related to these issues.